> Process scaling is coming to an end and it is a social imperative that we find a new path to extend the Moore's Law exponential.
... is it? Are our human rights at risk here? This sentence feels weird.
... is it? Are our human rights at risk here? This sentence feels weird.
We are a giant parallel engine and insisting that we order all work crashes the capacity of the system to a rounding error. It's actively psychologically damaging because it gatekeeps people out of acknowledging that they can help be part of a solution instead of pretending to be silent witnesses to the effort of others.
I am not arguing "no-one gets to party untill we solve world hunger", I am questioning the 'social imperative claim' - computer performance has improved what, 3-5x in the last 5 years? It's not clear to me how this has benefitted the average Joe in a measurable way, who is struggling to put food on the table.
By contrast, if energy/food prices fell 5x, or became x more nutritious, the impact would be hard to miss. Even reduced prices of space rockets seem to have made more of a difference.
This is perhaps a belief, an ideology, an assumption or perhaps a theory. It doesn't matter much what you call it. The important part is to understand that computation today plays a similar role as to what mathematics did before we got computation.
Interestingly enough, Alan Kay performed a talk a couple of years ago about this topic, questioning why despite sustained growth and investment into computing power in medicine, medicine discovery was actually _dropping_ as a result.
I don't recall exactly if it was "medicine discovery", but it was something important related to that idea. So, that's an important topic to discuss if you hold the belief that computation will improve all areas of living in invisible ways by being some sort of mathematical infrastructure or whatever you want to call it.