The evolution of technology has been a continuation of the evolutionary process that gave rise to us—the technology-creating species—in the first place. It took tens of thousands of years for our ancestors to figure out that sharpening both sides of a stone created useful tools. Then, earlier in this past millennium, the time required for a major paradigm shift in technology had shrunk to hundreds of years.
The pace continued to accelerate during the 19th century, during which technological progress was equal to that of the 10 centuries that came before it. Advancement in the first two decades of the 20th century matched that of the entire 19th century. Today significant technological transformations take just a few years; for example, the World Wide Web, already a ubiquitous form of communication and commerce, did not exist just 20 years ago. One decade ago almost no one used search engines.
Computing technology is experiencing the same exponential growth. Over the past several decades a key factor in this expansion has been described by Moore’s Law. Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, noted in the mid-1960s that technologists had been doubling the density of transistors on integrated circuits every 12 months. This meant computers were periodically doubling both in capacity and in speed per unit cost. In the mid-1970s Moore revised his observation of the doubling time to a more accurate estimate of about 24 months, and that trend has persisted through the years.
After decades of devoted service, Moore’s Law will have run its course around 2019. By that time, transistor features will be just a few atoms in width. But new computer architectures will continue the exponential growth of computing. For example, computing cubes are already being designed that will provide thousands of layers of circuits, not just one as in today’s computer chips. Other technologies that promise orders-of-magnitude increases in computing density include nanotube circuits built from carbon atoms, optical computing, crystalline computing and molecular computing.
We can readily see the march of computing by plotting the speed (in instructions per second) per $1,000 (in constant dollars) of 49 famous calculating machines spanning the 20th century [see illustration on opposite page]. The graph is a study in exponential growth: computer speed per unit cost doubled every three years between 1910 and 1950 and every two years between 1950 and 1966 and is now doubling every year. It took 90 years to achieve the first $1,000 computer capable of executing one million instructions per second (MIPS). Now we add an additional MIPS to a $1,000 computer every day.
Why Returns Accelerate
Why do we see exponential progress occurring in biological life, technology and computing? It is the result of a fundamental attribute of any evolutionary process, a phenomenon I call the Law of Accelerating Returns. As order exponentially increases (which reflects the essence of evolution), the time between salient events grows shorter. Advancement speeds up. The returns—the valuable products of the process—accelerate at a nonlinear rate. The escalating growth in the price performance of computing is one important example of such accelerating returns.
A frequent criticism of predictions is that they rely on an unjustified extrapolation of current trends, without considering the forces that may alter those trends. But an evolutionary process accelerates because it builds on past achievements, including improvements in its own means for further evolution. The resources it needs to continue exponential growth are its own increasing order and the chaos in the environment in which the evolutionary process takes place, which provides the options for further diversity. These two resources are essentially without limit.
The Law of Accelerating Returns shows that by around 2020 a $1,000 personal computer will have the processing power of the human brain—20 million billion calculations per second. The estimates are based on regions of the brain that have already been successfully simulated. By 2055, $1,000 worth of computing will equal the processing power of all human brains on Earth (of course, I may be off by a year or two).
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentI just saw the title of the article, and I knew it was Ray. There is so much that I want to ask you Ray, as I am one of your truest fan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the first few times I read (actually listened to audio book) about singularity, I noticed one flaw that now is actually actualized. Back then I didn't see it as what it is now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou were always looking from the point of technology perspective, but not from the NEED perspective. You are probably encircled with technology, so maybe you got lost the real view. Only real thing that drives the progress and the development of new things is a need. You predicted either singularity under 50 years, or crash of the civilization in form of self-annihilation. Did it ever occur to you third option - stall due to economic reason? As it happened now?
The author mistakes the instrument for the player. The brain is complex and wonderful indeed! But I think consciousness (or mind) requires a brain to interact and experience the physical world. Just as a musician requires an instrument to create and interact with sound. Other authors in this magazine claim we haven't got a clue about how consciousness works. I agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn general, human beings have been inventing machines to do some or all of their work for them for a very long time. It seems unlikely to me that we would slow down on our efforts to invent machines to do our thinking for us. As far as interacting with the physical world, computers have always had ways to interact with the world around them - in a limited way at first, but increasing exponentially. How will we know when a device is conscious? When it does something nobody told it to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main current trend in robotic devices is to produce artificial warriors. When they will have all destroyed one another, perhaps the human species will get around to doing something useful with its technology, like inventing ways of teaching people to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. This would take a big intellectual leap on the part of software designers, who spend so much time and money developping such things as crime-based computer games.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In general, human beings have been inventing machines to do some or all of their work for them for a very long time. It seems unlikely to me that we would slow down on our efforts to invent machines to do our thinking for us."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's becoming necessary to develop machines to think for us, to better do our work for us. When it comes to some things, only a computer is actually "smart" enough to do the job. This IS the need Mosmondor doesn't identify. In design & engineering, having a machine understand the intent of the part its designing would be nothing short of revolutionary. Thus far, our minds are not capable of calculating the complex geometry of a 3d part and relaying that to a precision manufacturing process. A computer can take a few inputs, and using some preprogrammed parameters, can "fill in" the rest of the complex shape of the design. If software was "smart" enough to understand the intent of the design, it could simultaneously design and refine two parts to work together toward the design objective... now instead of a bunch of separate human brains each relying on person-to-person communication to get to that point, a single mind can both design and engineer entire complex systems start to finish.
Since "consciousness" has come to mean "x property of the brain that elevates us over other life forms", (even though other species have exhibited posessing every one of our esteemed cognitive abilities), I can't imagine the notion of "consciousness" being taken seriously for very mych longer.
When manufacturing robots start to design and manufacture other manufacturing robots, they will have achieved what "life" exists to achieve.
And that will be an interesting time.
The progression I see is one that requires a physical extension. It can be the most amazing software in the world, but as long as software requires computers to run on, someone will have to make computers, someone will have to mine the materials, someone will have to bridge the gap. Eventually, this would be robots, as they're sure to outlive our species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen software and hardware are made just smart enough to be self analytical and self- servicing, full-on reproduction is inevitable.
I get sidetracked waayyy too easily on this subject. But I can't help but think about it every time I walk into our shop and see at our hulking CNC machines, each already capable of recreating themselves, if only they had the software. Like humble, sleeping giants, on the brink of their races awakening. Anyway...
oh dear oh dear. hopped up wishful thinking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Developing complete maps of the human brain is not as daunting as it may sound. The Human Genome Project seemed impractical when it was first proposed."
yes - and it's possible that the results of "mapping the human brain" will be similar to "mapping" the genome: having a "map" before us will suddenly make it clear how little it illuminates anything, and how far we are from understanding its workings.
Evolution acts on several traits, not only intelligence or processing power. It?s exponentiall until it finds the feasible limit, for example size in dinosaurs and speed in cheetas. After that it gets stuck. There will be even more intelligent beings either biological or not? There probable will, until they get stuck also at the feasible level. Then comes the real question: what to do with that inteligence? Hopefully more intelligent beings will have more intelligent answers that we humans do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like Scientific American's scientific articles. Sadly, this doesn't qualify as scientific. The author invents an untested "law" and uses it to tell us without qualification that computers will be of superhuman intelligence by the 2030s. If the author acknowledged how speculative his claims are, I would probably enjoy reading it. As the article is written, however, I am unable to read past page 2. I would hope the editors would limit or disclaim these sorts of articles because they drag the whole magazine down with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKurzweil claims technology is the next step in evolution, and that it is the successor of biology. Evolution is certainly not an exponential process, but a gradual one. Aslo technology has nothing to with the evolutionary processes. How can he claim this. It is however the claim that forms the basis for his (long term) singularity predictions and its exponential growth path.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, humanity has walked many dead ends in science. Kurzweil assumes we understand all there is to physics and know all the basic concepts that are. We just need to digg into them a bit further. So thought Newton, so thought Aristoteles and so thought the Church in the past. It later turned out they weren't right in many aspects. Their models could only be used so far.
So maybe it's much more likely there's still some fundamental science stuff yet to be discovered before we can really reengineer everything around us. This idea is in my opinion just as likely as the idea that there isn't anything fundamental about science that we need to figure out first before we can truely understand our inner self.
This article reminds me of how physcists said they'd have fusion working in 20 years. Now that it is 50+ years later they are finally saying stuff like "the problem is a little more complex than we at first thought"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing that says we can actually understand how we think, in fact, there are quite a few proofs concerning logic and systems that point towards the likelihood that we can't. Obviously, it would be tough to code a system that noone can possibly understand. The laims in the article are, well, nearly science fiction. We haven't even mastered vision (this is something we will eventually master though) but behind that lies the knowledge representation problem (of which, we are basically clueless).
People might state alternatives, like mapping someones brain or using computers to crreate a simulated environment where other machines can speedily evolve intelligence (boith rather doubtful anytime soon). The problem here is it would be intelligent but also probably have all the forbles of humans. Depressed machines or pyschotic ones aren't on anyone's agenda and when a system is as complex as our brains, a gamma ray bit flip could be a serious problem ;).
No, in all likelihood we'll get better and better robots for doing specific tasks. This is a good thing and maybe after a few thousand years of self-study through deep meditation and (hopefully) longer lifespans we'll finally crack that knowledge representation problem (which will probably come after the physicists finally come up with the universal theorem).
This article reminds me of how physcists said they'd have fusion working in 20 years. Now that it is 50+ years later they are finally saying stuff like "the problem is a little more complex than we at first thought"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing that says we can actually understand how we think, in fact, there are quite a few proofs concerning logic and systems that point towards the likelihood that we can't. Obviously, it would be tough to code a system that noone can possibly understand. The laims in the article are, well, nearly science fiction. We haven't even mastered vision (this is something we will eventually master though) but behind that lies the knowledge representation problem (of which, we are basically clueless).
People might state alternatives, like mapping someones brain or using computers to crreate a simulated environment where other machines can speedily evolve intelligence (boith rather doubtful anytime soon). The problem here is it would be intelligent but also probably have all the forbles of humans. Depressed machines or pyschotic ones aren't on anyone's agenda and when a system is as complex as our brains, a gamma ray bit flip could be a serious problem ;).
No, in all likelihood we'll get better and better robots for doing specific tasks. This is a good thing and maybe after a few thousand years of self-study through deep meditation and (hopefully) longer lifespans we'll finally crack that knowledge representation problem (which will probably come after the physicists finally come up with the universal theorem).
Roger Penrose has an elegant proof of the illegitimacy of actual consciousness in computers. Consciousness being the assignment of meaning to actually meaningless events (or something like that). Furthermore, theoretically you cannot have consciousness without quantum processes in computing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not argue that familiar human actions can not be duplicated by a robot as directed by some interpretation of how intelligence works. I will say that all such scientific interpretations are so far defective. They are based on simplistic interpretations of how the cosmic order works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe structural dynamics of the cosmic order are introduced in articles at www.cosmic-mindreach.com in a way that embraces all possible structural varieties of thought and behavior. But the nature of the cosmic order consists of an open ended series of nested Systems such the lower Systems transcend and subsume the higher Systems that elaborate on them. In this way it can be seen that right brain intuitive insight leads left-brain language based reason and logic, not vice versa. Science and technology are left brain exercises. Both hemispheres of the new brain or neo-cortex are fueled by emotional feedback from the ancient limbic brain that has been structured into our neural anatomy by some 450 million years of evolution according to how the cosmic order works. Can a robot have independent intuitive insight into the cosmic order? I do not think so. In humans this capacity transcends our own birth and death.
But familiar human actions can be duplicated by a robot, even in such a way that they can learn, albeit in ways limited by the very nature of the cosmic order.
The human body has a proprioceptive nervous system that tells the relative orientation of the bodys truck and limb segments in space. Muscles throughout the body have neuromuscular spindles in them that have an independent motor supply. They can be activated independently of the parent muscle to simulate an action before it is performed and generate propriceptive sensory feedback accordingly. This proprioceptive sensory feedback anticipates a future course of action. It is reconciled with direct sensory input that the body responds to according to prior conditioned responses. These two modes of action, one driven causally from the past and the other anticipating a future together determine our physical behavior in a way that spans and integrates space and time.
It is possible to design a robot that can also anticipate a future course of action and function along the same lines as a human body. This eliminates the need to compute a robots behaviour completely since it can be automatically adjusted in stages along the way according to alternating proprioceptive inputs. See the website article on Robotics at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. You should find it interesting.
D.Hires, Thats kind of a false assumption. Computers do things people don't tell them to do all the time, its called an "unexpected result" or a glitch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as machines coming to "feel", thats just impossible while they are still only machines and electronics. Our feelings come from chemical responses, a pure machine would not be capable of a chemical response. Anger is chemical, as is love, loneliness, sorrow, compassion, happiness, etc.
I do believe a day is coming when man and machine truly are recombined into cybernetic unison, however it will be next to impossible to remain "Human" until we begin making biological mechanisms. At the point we begin this biological computer revolution, we will be able to truly evolve ourselves into 'ideal' human perfection.
Already made it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have already made it :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the skeptics. I bet none of them work in scientific fields, attempting to bring predictions like these to reality. Rather then whining about how it won't or can't be done, why not try?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are not working on the cutting edge of any of these technologies, then why are you posting opinions?
Ellipsoid, the law comes from the observation that the rate of increase of the speed of information processes is proportional to the speed itself (given this premisse, the exponential "law" is just a mathematical fact), and that most engineering design processes (and rapidly manufacturing processes) can be essentially reduced to information processes. Look at the overwhelming evidence in the history of computing. When you think you can buy a Terabyte of storage for a $100 today (that you can fit in your pocket), vs a few megabytes in the early 90's, vs kilobytes in the 80's, the rate of progress is truly astonishing. The same goes for communications (the Internet, cell-phones, etc.) What is surprising to me is how oblivious people are to the speed and magnitude of this progress. You can now carry the proverbial encyclopedia in a key chain, and access on your iphone the collective knowledge of the world. In any event, what would seem more unlikely is for this progress to just stop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeural implants that "improve" our sensory experiences, memory and thinking!? Only those among us who have not yet self-realized their spiritual essence will go for this kind of invasion of the mind. This is the maturation of materialistic perversion indeed! Can you imagine all the possible things that can go wrong inside your brain with artificial implants that alters the way you think and feel emotions? I cannot imagine surrendering my mind to artificial machines doing my thinking and feeling for me. This is outrageous and certainly turning me off from ever being born again as a human being in this universe. Imagine how the authorities and indeed anyone with negative intention being able to abuse the leverage of such implants inside people's skulls. If you fall for this, you will be a puppet in the hands of those with sinister intentions. Do you really want to be the scientist's robot? They will play with you like a toy once you have one of their brain implants...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, your physical body, including your brain is a manifestation of your karma, a projection of your spiritual energy and you are not meant to alter this precious manifestation by such invasive means.
Neural implants that "improve" our sensory experiences, memory and thinking!? Only those among us who have not yet self-realized their spiritual essence will go for this kind of invasion of the mind. This is the maturation of materialistic perversion indeed! Can you imagine all the possible things that can go wrong inside your brain with artificial implants that alters the way you think and feel emotions? I cannot imagine surrendering my mind to artificial machines doing my thinking and feeling for me. This is outrageous and certainly turning me off from ever being born again as a human being in this universe. Imagine how the authorities and indeed anyone with negative intention being able to abuse the leverage of such implants inside people's skulls. If you fall for this, you will be a puppet in the hands of those with sinister intentions. Do you really want to be the scientist's robot? They will play with you like a toy once you have one of their brain implants...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, your physical body, including your brain is a manifestation of your karma, a projection of your spiritual energy and you are not meant to alter (a form of denial of your responsibility for this body/mind complex) this precious manifestation by such invasive means.
What will this "mind file" be thinking without a body? It cannot be exactly the same in a purely digital format.... less we involve virtual reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHqsciam, do you know the saddest part of my life? I'm soooo away from people like you. There is so much to learn and I don't hva the people to learn from around me. It is easy to browse in Internet, but I just miss the face-to-face conversation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd when the eyes start to open from the long sleep and the mind starts to detect the obvious, one suddenly realizes that he/she surrownded by sleeping people.
Be careful what you wish for. If this category of mental invasive technology indeed becomes a reality and finds itself implemented into the brains of human beings, it will mean the end of humanity as we know it and the birth of something nobody would want to live with in the end. The more humans are trying to enhance their external world with technology the more degenerate this world becomes...it's sad, because a few thousand years ago when people were not dependent upon technology they were able to do all this super-natural kind of communication and mental experiences on their own with just the minds they were born with. Intuition has died with the advent of this crazy technology. People are giving away their power to the degenerate, disturbed scientists...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismhjgjhg
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a SIMPLY way to find out if the population of computer programs is consciousness ;) If we only could understand their language (what is obviouse in the case of simulated human brains). We could create a CLOSED virtual world for them in which they could live, IF THEY create languages in which we could recognize the term 'consciousness', that means they are self-awere. THE hiden axiom is that, the word that has no represetation in human mind, shouldnt exist or should be eliminated because is informative for one. Do you know that escimos have at least 21 worlds for calling the "snow" ?! Why we have the world ''consciousness" thy not only "alive" ? What do you think about it ? I think it's kind of Turing test, because it measure behavior, or rather product of the behavior. Sorry for my english. ps. I know that the problem is unsolvable from definition, but we gonna need practical test. Unfortunatly this test couldn't be applicable to ONE specify individual until we erase his memories. ;> What do you think about it ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this