Because Moore's Law largely stopped around ~2005 when Dennard Scaling stopped being a thing. Meaning clockspeeds have hovered around the 4-5Ghz rate for the last 20 years time.

We have started coping by engaging in parallelism through multi-core systems but due to Amdahls Law there is a diminishing return associated with adding more cores to your system.

On the "Instructions Per Cycle" front we're only making slow linear progression similar to other non-IT industries so there's not a lot of gain to be had from this either.

The reason why 2003-2013 feels like a bigger step is because it was a bigger step than 2013-2023. At least from a hardware perspective.

The big innovation we've made however is using largely parallelized GPU cores to accelerate machine learning on the extremely large data sets large social media sites have which has resulted in the current AI boom.

But yeah you are correct in your assessment that computer technology have largely stagnated since about ~2005.

Google is choosing to die

AI will be bigger in 2033, but I am afraid that it will run out of steam. The neural networks that are built today are like ladders to the moon. We need rockets and some sort of fuel. But I bet that if someone figures it out, it will seem pretty obvious in hindsight.

The rest is politics and tradition. Almost no one can compete with Silicon Valley. Some governments try, but it is not a priority for them.

Nobody can live forever, for even stars die. Yet we can extend our lifes and have done so in the past

With AI, life extension will be big.

Also biotech and DNA sequencing tech has been improving exponentially. The cost of full genome sequencing is down to $100 from $10,000 in early 2010s and millions in early 2000s.

https://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/individual-s-curve-progress-time-chart.jpg

Most people dont like to admit it, but technology is slowing down significantly. Cures for aging or even treatments for it, nanobots, curing blindness / paralysis / alzheimers etc, lab grown / artifical organs etc or even regrowing teeth or a cure for the common cold are still decades away despite years upon years of ‘breakthroughs’.

im sure if you asked someone in 2013 what they think we would have in 2023, they would give an answer that seems ridiculous to us today. But no, 2023 is the same as 2003 except for smartphones, tablets, etc, better computers, and a few primitive gene therapies. What does that say about what 2043 or even 2053 will be like?

and if you dont believe me, go ask basically any expert in the relevant field(s) how far away even the simplest of these technologies are. You probably wont like what they tell you

Ubi will come from big tech companies. Not from workers taxs

​

I've actually been surprised at how rapidly, and deeply, the anti-AI sentiment took hold in the art community. I still hope its mostly a vocal minority.

And yeah, as the models keep improving the anti-AI types will probably just get more shrill. It will be funny to see them keep trying to make fun of AI art as they keep having to get more and more picky about the flaws they point out in AI-generated content. At some point the models will figure out things like hands, and keep getting more and more consistently coherent.

I like you’re alliteration and colorful insults. Beautiful .

I bet 2024 everyone will have their own private AI and if I want to accomplish anything that requires me to get in contact with someone I instead tell my AI what I need, then my AI gets in touch with their AI and they figure as much out as they can without involving us. Then they report back with further questions or "you now have an appointment scheduled for around five pm"

It is beginning to feel like we're entering into the end game, at least the opening phase of it. We're finally starting to see the stuff futurists have been talking about since at least the early 90's in terms of a lead-up to a singularity.

I get see how that might be frustrating but "style" cannot, and should not, be something that can be copyrighted. The negatives of doing this would outweigh the positives.

I can see your point but I optimistically assume that a larger amount of art in total will also mean a larger amount of quality art.(even if its a small percentage of the total) And the same AI tools that generate art will also be able to help people seek out art that appeals to them. The best art will still rise to the top and there will still be a skill in things like worldbuilding, setting style guides, etc.

Yep! I did.

I recommend it too. I talked about it a few days ago in the sub discord :D

Maybe they’re simply holding back and we come out with a truly innovative finished product. Other smaller companies have more to prove quickly

Germany, Italy, and Japan are English now?

Once again, you flat out lied

Okay buddy

[deleted]

People will give you all kinds of strange answers but the truth is that it's the difference between subjective and objective change and your chosen perspective on it all.

[deleted]

It might still technically be an "s curve" but the curve up with ai will be so high that the s shouldnt come down for a long while.

Combination of the two. But still s curves.

I think much of the progress was under the radar and out of public view. OpenAI was founded in 2015 and just reached mainstream consciousness with their product launches. Also in 2015, I met people working on LLM and NLP at Google, and it appears Google was reluctant to release some of this tech but now they want to since they want to compete with OpenAI.