>>21160866>i thought you'd have more to say. i admire you and i've enjoyed your other posts....what? Aight we'll double back to that later. This line saved you and is keeping me here.
>there are peaks and troughs of rate of advancementYes advancement in general has high's and lows like the one we just got out of. Moore's law was recently btfo with processors advancing to unheard of speeds. Look at the Ryzen thread ripper series to understand how we overcame the limitation. Now we have to innovate around quantum tunneling in our microprocessors. It's a whole bitch but we are advancing at a relatively stable rate. Compare the computers of the 70's to today and you'll understand.
>it could be considered THE peak of advancement if you accept that things, in practice, deteriorate as advancement slows downDeteriorate implies that it's getting worse but that's not true. Even the fiber optics we use for the internet are being advanced in by engineers at MIT discovering a way to use all of the cable for faster speeds. Your statement implies that there's some form of back stepping we're taking in development because reasons which isn't true at all. A great lot of advancements are more subjective in their use and worth. Something that you seem to be biased towards. I understand that you may feel that certain innovations have been a step in the wrong direction but that's more an argument about how they're used by the public than the effectiveness of the technology.
>as long as the cycle continues, we'll reach a higher point and that will then be THE peakThat's the thing there is no peak for technology. We always make something better, do something new in a new way or pioneer something completely out of the ordinary that gets a lot of development. AI is the newest innovation and quantum computing is right alongside it. Peaking means that we stop innovating. We stop putting out technology to do different things.
Cont.
