> Unfortunately nothing else is following Moore's Law, if something else
> was you wouldn't have to ask, it would be impossible to overlook.
> That's not to say other things are not exponential, but they're much
> further back toward the flatter part of the curve than Moore is.
>
> John K Clark jonkc@att.net
>
>
Reads a bit like nonsense I'm afraid. There is no flatter bit of an
exponential curve; it looks the same forward and back (I'm taking some
liberties), no matter where you stand on the curve. Multiplying by a
constant amount per constant time period (like multiplying transistors per
square inch on an IC by 2 every 18 months), says that the rate of change is
constant.
This relates to the concept of a singularity perhaps. The notion that technology and other stuff (that's the technological term) increase so much that things go batso (also jargon) - I assume that the rate of change of the various exponential curves involved is constant. I also assume that people can adapt (and indeed have adapted) to a constant rate of change - look at the computer hardware industry. Acknowledgement of Moore's Law (and design with it in mind) shows that people can cope with constant change, as long as it is predictable.
So what we are concerned with re: singularity is not increasingly accelerated change; that's most likely not to happen. What is more important is the qualitative thresholds reached in what we can accomplish as this predictable constant increase in technology advances. Moore's law (and other exponential increase) is not a direct threat, but it may (should) lead to such things as nanotech, strong AI, intelligence augmentation, etc, which all constitute qualitative changes to the human landscape. Then new curves are created...
Emlyn