The ubicomp manoeuvre was to realise that Moore’s Law cuts both ways.
Moore’s Law: pound for pound, computers double in power every 18 months. Or 100x over ten years. (And let’s forget about the death of Moore’s Law. We’ve been stuck in an AI overhang and I’m 100% sure there is a lab someone using AI to jiggle up silicon pathways literally as I write this.)
If computers get 100 times more powerful over a decade, we can EQUIVALENTLY say that computers get: 100 times smaller; or 100 times cheaper; or 100 times more abundant.
So that was the enabler behind Mark Weiner’s 1988 conception of ubiquitous computing.
At the turn of the century, a typical workshop or factory contained a single engine that drove dozens or hundreds of different machines through a system of shafts and pulleys. Cheap, small, efficient electric motors made it possible first to give each machine or tool its own source of motive force, then to put many motors into a single machine.
A glance through the shop manual of a typical automobile, for example, reveals twenty-two motors and twenty-five more solenoids. They start the engine, clean the windshield, lock and unlock the doors, and so on. …
Most of the computers that participate in embodied virtuality will be invisible in fact as well as in metaphor. Already computers in light switches, thermostats, stereos and ovens help to activate the world
Just the enabler though. The original conception, in Weiser’s Ubiquitous Computing #1, was inspired by looking at people and attempting to bend computing towards actual practice:
Inspired by the social scientists, philosophers, and anthropologists at PARC, we have been trying to take a radical look at what computing and networking ought to be like. We believe that people live through their practices and tacit knowledge so that the most powerful things are those that are effectively invisible in use. This is a challenge that affects all of computer science.
Ok.
BY ANALOGY:
If future AI models will be more and more intelligent (per watt, or per penny, or per cubit foot, whatever we choose measure) then we can equivalently say that, in the future, today’s AI models will become cheaper and more abundant.
What happens when intelligence is too cheap to meter?
Too cheap to meter: a commodity so inexpensive that it is cheaper and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a flat fee or even free.
Electrification began in cities around 1915 and with electrification so too came the potential market for washing machines, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and a host of other commercial appliances. … By 1920, over 500,000 fractional horse-power motors were powering washers and other appliances in America.
In 2033, GPT-4 will be 100x faster, or 100x smaller, or 100x cheaper. What then?
LIKE:
Given an internal camera and access to Google, your oven cooks everything perfectly (and asks you about your preferences if it’s ambiguous).
Or telepathic light switches. Given some history and a bit of behavioural pattern matching, a Feynmann-level light switch could guess your intentions pretty well.
Viable home weaving of clothes? Buy infinite Uniqlo and a robot sewing machine. It’s interesting that ubiquitous AI means the end of ease of use: you can have a home fabrication unit or whatever that is as complex as you like, with whatever quantity of subprocesses, and there’s no skills gate that means you have to hire a trained professional or learn how to operate it. You will just talk to it.
Universal lie detectors (sub-visual readings of blood flow in the face, voice stress, etc).
In-home drones and robotics probably get solved pretty quick. So I should be able to say to a drone: “where’s that book I own that mentions X” or “where did I leave my keys” - but I’m not sure this is on the ubiquitous, fractional AI end of things.
Dunno, I need to think about this. Approach it systematically.
10 years after that, 100x smaller again. Nano AI, molecular scale intelligence. Drexler assemblers, smart dust. What if a grain of sand the size of the dot at the end of this sentence is as smart as you are, a handful for a penny, and can wave its flagellum to talk on the wi-fi.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it by email or on social media. Here’s the link. Thanks, —Matt.
‘Yes, we’ll see them together some Saturday afternoon then,’ she said. ‘I won’t have any hand in your not going to Cathedral on Sunday morning. I suppose we must be getting back. What time was it when you looked at your watch just now?’ "In China and some other countries it is not considered necessary to give the girls any education; but in Japan it is not so. The girls are educated here, though not so much as the boys; and of late years they have established schools where they receive what we call the higher branches of instruction. Every year new schools for girls are opened; and a great many of the Japanese who formerly would not be seen in public with their wives have adopted the Western idea, and bring their wives into society. The marriage laws have been arranged so as to allow the different classes to marry among[Pg 258] each other, and the government is doing all it can to improve the condition of the women. They were better off before than the women of any other Eastern country; and if things go on as they are now going, they will be still better in a few years. The world moves. "Frank and Fred." She whispered something to herself in horrified dismay; but then she looked at me with her eyes very blue and said "You'll see him about it, won't you? You must help unravel this tangle, Richard; and if you do I'll--I'll dance at your wedding; yours and--somebody's we know!" Her eyes began forewith. Lawrence laughed silently. He seemed to be intensely amused about something. He took a flat brown paper parcel from his pocket. making a notable addition to American literature. I did truly. "Surely," said the minister, "surely." There might have been men who would have remembered that Mrs. Lawton was a tough woman, even for a mining town, and who would in the names of their own wives have refused to let her cross the threshold of their homes. But he saw that she was ill, and he did not so much as hesitate. "I feel awful sorry for you sir," said the Lieutenant, much moved. "And if I had it in my power you should go. But I have got my orders, and I must obey them. I musn't allow anybody not actually be longing to the army to pass on across the river on the train." "Throw a piece o' that fat pine on the fire. Shorty," said the Deacon, "and let's see what I've got." "Further admonitions," continued the Lieutenant, "had the same result, and I was about to call a guard to put him under arrest, when I happened to notice a pair of field-glasses that the prisoner had picked up, and was evidently intending to appropriate to his own use, and not account for them. This was confirmed by his approaching me in a menacing manner, insolently demanding their return, and threatening me in a loud voice if I did not give them up, which I properly refused to do, and ordered a Sergeant who had come up to seize and buck-and-gag him. The Sergeant, against whom I shall appear later, did not obey my orders, but seemed to abet his companion's gross insubordination. The scene finally culminated, in the presence of a number of enlisted men, in the prisoner's wrenching the field-glasses away from me by main force, and would have struck me had not the Sergeant prevented this. It was such an act as in any other army in the world would have subjected the offender to instant execution. It was only possible in—" "Don't soft-soap me," the old woman snapped. "I'm too old for it and I'm too tough for it. I want to look at some facts, and I want you to look at them, too." She paused, and nobody said a word. "I want to start with a simple statement. We're in trouble." RE: Fruyling's World "MACDONALD'S GATE" "Read me some of it." "Well, I want something better than that." HoME大香蕉第一时间
ENTER NUMBET 0016fsdxjms.org.cn jnchain.com.cn ktztth.com.cn oxqgcj.com.cn www.nlkxxz.com.cn www.shibotiyu.com.cn www.otjejf.com.cn titceb.com.cn wxstest.com.cn jnswmb.com.cn
The ubicomp manoeuvre was to realise that Moore’s Law cuts both ways.
Moore’s Law: pound for pound, computers double in power every 18 months. Or 100x over ten years. (And let’s forget about the death of Moore’s Law. We’ve been stuck in an AI overhang and I’m 100% sure there is a lab someone using AI to jiggle up silicon pathways literally as I write this.)
If computers get 100 times more powerful over a decade, we can EQUIVALENTLY say that computers get: 100 times smaller; or 100 times cheaper; or 100 times more abundant.
So that was the enabler behind Mark Weiner’s 1988 conception of ubiquitous computing.
Just the enabler though. The original conception, in Weiser’s Ubiquitous Computing #1, was inspired by looking at people and attempting to bend computing towards actual practice:
Ok.
BY ANALOGY:
If future AI models will be more and more intelligent (per watt, or per penny, or per cubit foot, whatever we choose measure) then we can equivalently say that, in the future, today’s AI models will become cheaper and more abundant.
What happens when intelligence is too cheap to meter?
Too cheap to meter:
Me on fractional horsepower and fractional AI in 2012 and 2017:
In 2033, GPT-4 will be 100x faster, or 100x smaller, or 100x cheaper. What then?
LIKE:
Given an internal camera and access to Google, your oven cooks everything perfectly (and asks you about your preferences if it’s ambiguous).
Or telepathic light switches. Given some history and a bit of behavioural pattern matching, a Feynmann-level light switch could guess your intentions pretty well.
Viable home weaving of clothes? Buy infinite Uniqlo and a robot sewing machine. It’s interesting that ubiquitous AI means the end of ease of use: you can have a home fabrication unit or whatever that is as complex as you like, with whatever quantity of subprocesses, and there’s no skills gate that means you have to hire a trained professional or learn how to operate it. You will just talk to it.
Universal lie detectors (sub-visual readings of blood flow in the face, voice stress, etc).
In-home drones and robotics probably get solved pretty quick. So I should be able to say to a drone: “where’s that book I own that mentions X” or “where did I leave my keys” - but I’m not sure this is on the ubiquitous, fractional AI end of things.
Dunno, I need to think about this. Approach it systematically.
10 years after that, 100x smaller again. Nano AI, molecular scale intelligence. Drexler assemblers, smart dust. What if a grain of sand the size of the dot at the end of this sentence is as smart as you are, a handful for a penny, and can wave its flagellum to talk on the wi-fi.