Time till advanced APM - Revision history

Apm: /* Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" */

2025-05-12T08:08:44Z

Possibility of exceeding Moores "law"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 12 May 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Jim Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex) mentions this idea here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZggI7ftAQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m4s].		Jim Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex) mentions this idea here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZggI7ftAQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m4s].

	See main page: [[Doubly declining learning curve]]		See main page: '''[[Doubly declining learning curve]]'''

	== Reactions on predictions ==		== Reactions on predictions ==

Apm: /* Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" */ added link to yet unwritten page Doubly declining learning curve

2025-05-12T05:50:53Z

Possibility of exceeding Moores "law": added link to yet unwritten page Doubly declining learning curve

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 12 May 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	So once an exponential trend sets in, it cold potentially progress much more disruptively than Moore's law.<br>		So once an exponential trend sets in, it cold potentially progress much more disruptively than Moore's law.<br>
	Jim Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex) mentions this idea here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZggI7ftAQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m4s].		Jim Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex) mentions this idea here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZggI7ftAQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m4s].

			See main page: [[Doubly declining learning curve]]

	== Reactions on predictions ==		== Reactions on predictions ==

Apm: /* Scaling – What seems to be the most difficult part might actually be the easiest part */

2018-08-12T20:26:44Z

Scaling – What seems to be the most difficult part might actually be the easiest part

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 12 August 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:
	One might think that scaling up system size (and complexity) to the unconditionally required [[truly massive scales]] is the most severe hurdle. But the accelerating speed of progress in microcomputer technology suggests otherwise.		One might think that scaling up system size (and complexity) to the unconditionally required [[truly massive scales]] is the most severe hurdle. But the accelerating speed of progress in microcomputer technology suggests otherwise.

	For some elaborations see: [[Data_decompression_chain#Bootstrapping_of_the_decompression_chain]]		For some elaborations see: [[Data_decompression_chain#Bootstrapping_of_the_decompression_chain]]<br>
			{{wikitodo\| move this topic to [[Data IO bottleneck]]}}

	== Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" ==		== Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" ==

Apm: /* Scaling – What seems to be the most difficult part might actually be the easiest part */ added link to existing related discussion

2018-08-12T20:21:29Z

Scaling – What seems to be the most difficult part might actually be the easiest part: added link to existing related discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 12 August 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	One might think that scaling up system size (and complexity) to the unconditionally required [[truly massive scales]] is the most severe hurdle. But the accelerating speed of progress in microcomputer technology suggests otherwise.		One might think that scaling up system size (and complexity) to the unconditionally required [[truly massive scales]] is the most severe hurdle. But the accelerating speed of progress in microcomputer technology suggests otherwise.

			For some elaborations see: [[Data_decompression_chain#Bootstrapping_of_the_decompression_chain]]

	== Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" ==		== Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" ==

Apm: /* Reactions on predictions */ point A elaboration -- more verbose

2018-08-12T20:14:17Z

Reactions on predictions: point A elaboration -- more verbose

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 12 August 2018
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Regarding point A:<br>		Regarding point A:<br>
	This is one of the main [[reasons for APM\|reasons]] why we should consciously walk towards [[technology level III\|advanced APM]] and not stumble in by accident.		This is one of the main [[reasons for APM\|reasons]] why we should consciously walk towards [[technology level III\|advanced APM]] and should not wait till we stumble in by accident. That is we should not wait till the target of advanced APM becomes painfully obvious for even the most blind.

	Regarding point B:<br>		Regarding point B:<br>
	Actually humanity does put quite some effort into research for improvement of current technology that is supposed to tackle those problems. So point B may be a bit pointless when taken as critique towards all of todays R&D.		Actually humanity does put quite some effort into research for improvement of current technology that is supposed to tackle those problems. So point B may be a bit pointless when taken as critique towards all of todays R&D.
	Maybe this is more meant as a precautious defense against the potentially possible criticism against APM proponents that they are neglecting point B.		Maybe this is more meant as a precautious defense against the potentially possible criticism against APM proponents that they are neglecting point B.

Apm: Removed duplicated "yet"

2017-12-11T05:08:40Z

Removed duplicated "yet"

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:08, 11 December 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	As of yet (2017) a reasonable estimation for the time-span it will take till we arrive at [[technology level III\|advanced APM systems]] cannot be given ~~yet~~.		As of yet (2017) a reasonable estimation for the time-span it will take till we arrive at [[technology level III\|advanced APM systems]] cannot be given.
	Not even a crude estimation.		Not even a crude estimation.

Apm: removed useless section that contained zero information

2017-10-27T19:13:13Z

removed useless section that contained zero information

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 27 October 2017
Line 40:		Line 40:
	Actually humanity does put quite some effort into research for improvement of current technology that is supposed to tackle those problems. So point B may be a bit pointless when taken as critique towards all of todays R&D.		Actually humanity does put quite some effort into research for improvement of current technology that is supposed to tackle those problems. So point B may be a bit pointless when taken as critique towards all of todays R&D.
	Maybe this is more meant as a precautious defense against the potentially possible criticism against APM proponents that they are neglecting point B.		Maybe this is more meant as a precautious defense against the potentially possible criticism against APM proponents that they are neglecting point B.

	~~== Delusional wishful thinking (do not cite this nonsense) ==~~
	~~{{speculativity warning}}~~
	Taking a completely arbitrary shot in the blue I (personal opinion of the sites admin) would hope that from the time of writing (2014) it will take not more than somewhere between one and four generations (1G ~25a & 4G's ~ one long lifetime).
	~~Why? Because then I may be able to see it with a lot of luck ;).~~

Apm: moved over from General Introduction to atomically precise manufacturing

2017-10-22T18:01:59Z

moved over from General Introduction to atomically precise manufacturing

New page

As of yet (2017) a reasonable estimation for the time-span it will take till we arrive at [[technology level III|advanced APM systems]] cannot be given yet.
Not even a crude estimation.

== Methods for prediction (and their absence) ==

Since [[exploratory engineering]] is '''not applicable''' for answering the "when"-question one needs to turn to other less reliable methods.
A popular one is extrapolating from past developments.
Best example here-for is "Moores law".

But in the field of APM there's no such thing as a Moore's "law" yet (2017) that we could track.
Its not even sure if such a law may even consistently occur and which metric would be used.
(Throughput in units of mol/s or kg/s of atomically precise product maybe.)

The greatest question-mark on the time-spans to expect comes from the fundamental unknowability when and where we'll find the right remaining critical steps through the initial pre-[[technological percolation limit|percolation-limit]]-part of the path.

If a Moors-law-like traceable progress metric emerges (post [[technological percolation limit]])
the expectable time-spans may become at least somewhat estimable.

== Scaling – What seems to be the most difficult part might actually be the easiest part ==

One might think that scaling up system size (and complexity) to the unconditionally required [[truly massive scales]] is the most severe hurdle. But the accelerating speed of progress in microcomputer technology suggests otherwise.

== Possibility of exceeding Moores "law" ==

Especially when one considers that in contrast to Moore's law, where the production facilities (the factories) grow larger and more and more expensive, with APM not only the products regularly double in performance but also the production devices producing the products.
So once an exponential trend sets in, it cold potentially progress much more disruptively than Moore's law. 
Jim Von Ehr (CEO of Zyvex) mentions this idea here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ZggI7ftAQ&feature=youtu.be&t=23m4s].

== Reactions on predictions ==

(Two points taken from a talk of Eric K. Drexler) 
To be on the safe side we should assume that: 
'''A)''' APM will come too soon for us to lean back and say: "we don't need to think about the effects and the [[dangers]] that the arising APM technology will bring." 
'''B)''' APM will come too late for us to lean back and say: "we don't need to [[opportunities|solve civilization problems]] because AP Technology will solve them."

Regarding point A: 
This is one of the main [[reasons for APM|reasons]] why we should consciously walk towards [[technology level III|advanced APM]] and not stumble in by accident.

Regarding point B: 
Actually humanity does put quite some effort into research for improvement of current technology that is supposed to tackle those problems. So point B may be a bit pointless when taken as critique towards all of todays R&D.
Maybe this is more meant as a precautious defense against the potentially possible criticism against APM proponents that they are neglecting point B.

== Delusional wishful thinking (do not cite this nonsense) ==
{{speculativity warning}}
Taking a completely arbitrary shot in the blue I (personal opinion of the sites admin) would hope that from the time of writing (2014) it will take not more than somewhere between one and four generations (1G ~25a & 4G's ~ one long lifetime).
Why? Because then I may be able to see it with a lot of luck ;).