[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

As far as I have read (I am not an engineer), you max out at the atomic level, even with advanced materials, and electrons start bleeding all over the place. If you had a quantum computer, then yeah, things keep rolling forward. Only problem is that a quantum computer seems to be a long way off.
.

Well I'm an engineer, I work in the field (semiconductors/tech). Again not trying to make you feel bad, but its hard for people not in the industry to understand the grand scope of how much it takes (and thus how much time it takes) to really get the (technology) infrastructure to implement a lot of these things. I have probably a few dozen friends that work for the aforementioned companies and do these projects (note: they dont tell me what they do, its guarded like Fort Knox, but its pretty easy to tell knowing their background and the job descriptions that recruiters send to people in the industry like me to figure out whats going on)'

I wasn't really talking about quantum computing, but look at things like what Intel has been trying with silicon photonics. I don't work for that team ... but to me, Moore's law is not the problem. Lots of other problems, and resolutions are much bigger.

I don't object that it takes a lot of factors to implement, but what I disagree with is that you speak of it like its a small chance of ever taking over or we're going to have a terminator like society or there won't be jobs because everything is automated. Google can probably tell you this, but 2 of the 3 of these are not true.

Originally Posted by peter12

Software is still written by human beings. Computers are pretty dumb outside of the tasks written for them by humans. At this point, they seem pretty good simulating, and then executing responses based on the increasing ability to recall, and reorganize lots of information. This is why we all love algorithms so much.

Yes to the first part, no to the 2nd. On your point about economics driving things... money is driving where innovation is going and the money for good software engineers are going into a lot of dumb fields. Besides Uber, Apple and Google which are able to recruit expensive talent.

Originally Posted by peter12

I guess it remains to see if we have picked all of the low-hanging fruit. A lot of the new "profitable" software platforms are just hyped-up sharing platforms. They have always existed in one shape or form, but are now being revived under this not so new idea of the sharing economy, which is really just Silicon Valley VCs figuring out a new way to become rentiers.

pretty much. more money is going into stupid startup ideas more then useful ones in society.

most of the limits of technology, however, aren't low hanging fruit. they are more a maze of unknowns that you aren't really sure what you are looking at (yet)

Originally Posted by peter12

As I keep saying, the implementation of technology has a lot of barriers - political and economic. When we start to understand these barriers, we see that even the idea that technology is inevitable is in some way a political way of viewing technology. Look at the graveyard of Google products. Look at something like Google Glass - a few years ago, it was supposed to revolutionize the way we experience reality. Humans rejected it, almost en-masse. Oculus Rift is the same thing, basically an iPad strapped to your face. .

those aren't really political or economic reasons for the failure of products. Google can tell you a better reason of the graveyard of Google products, but those aren't the reasons.

political/economic can be a barrier to some, yes. But if there is enough push, barriers can be overcome. and money can do a lot of talking (we see this a lot in American politics). I can't guarantee success as you said there are many factors, but some of these companies (and not some others) likely wouldn't put so much money if they didn't think it had a realistic chance.

Originally Posted by peter12

I am reeling way off-topic here. There is a lot to say, but to tie it back to autonomous cars, yeah, we have had the technology for like 20 years. Didn't Carnegie Mellon's robotic department drive a Pontiac across the state on autopilot in like 1993? Pretty much robot cars can do anything in a straight line. That is why they have had, for a long time, limited use in industrial settings. A robot truck can drive from point A to point B and back again day and night. But when we get into the real issue of widespread adoption of such technology, the questions become way more complicated.

not really, no. They had a proof of concept. lots of layers underneath still to develop. I'm a small fish in a big pond, but from some of the customer requests I've seen, they end product lines still don't really know what they need still but they know they don't have it, yet. (hopefully they do get it)

also, as dumb as you think technology is (which I don't disagree with you) tell me again when I see someone reading a book, cutting their toe nails, doing their makeup or smoking a bong while driving on the Deerfoot going 90 with their left turn signal still on.