Comments

I don't think you read the article very carefully Undertech. The image is projected directly onto the retina. You would not be reading text from the surface of the glasses.

Solace You point out two very common reactions to Kurzweil. He gets this often so he ends up responding to the same stuff over and over. You can read his book if your interested, but I'll respond to your comments real quick. 1. 2029. That's about 20 years from now. Isn't everything great going to occur about 20 years from now? Kurzweil didn't just pick this number out of thin air and he has consistently stuck to this number for over a decade. It is based on the exponential growth in processing power that you eluded to. He does account for the fact that neurons are not simply binary on/off switches and he goes orders of magnitude beyond that in his estimation of where we'd need to be for human level intelligence. 2. Moore's law is about to run out. Moore's law is about to run out. Before Moore's law (which deals with integrated circuits) we still had exponential growth in computing power, even with vacuum tubes and those punch cards. When one paradigm dies out, another one takes its place. While it's true this may not happen, I can't see it as the most likely scenario that we suddenly stop our technological progress because we can't fit more transistors onto a chip. There are so many other possible Moore's Law successors out there besides quantum computing. Carbon nanotubes, graphene, spintronics, photonics, using 3 dimensions instead of just 2 etc. I don't know if we'll have the computational power of the human brain by 2029 or not, but I just thought I'd respond.