> Basically what you’re saying is that we can get by with worse tech.
> I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to say we should do here, not try to make computing faster?
No. I'm saying that if you look at tech, generation by generation, faster is sometimes just faster. It doesn't always enable new use cases.
There's no extra subtext. I'm not saying we should stop making things faster. I just don't want the benefits of increased speed/efficiency to be overstated.
I don't think "we sorely need faster matrix multiplication" is true. It's just a nice-to-have. Which is still enough reason to make it! But it's a different level of benefit.
> It is an inevitability, in my opinion, that extra horsepower will enable some kind of new experience, however minor.
Sufficiently minor things aren't "genuine new use cases" that we "sorely need".
Eventually you'll hit a new use case, probably, but you might get zero new use cases for a long time.
> Your example of the original Apple Watch is perfect here. The original Apple Watch barely functioned, for staters, and had a reputation for being slow. It didn’t have GPS, cellular, always-on screen, or a number of other features that need a very powerful and power efficient chip, display, and wireless modem/chip. All of these features are things that have market value.
Not very much of that depends on computation getting faster.
I replied to your other comments but now I see that you are arguing in bad faith and I regret the time investment.
> It doesn't always enable new use cases.
It doesn't have to always enable new use cases, you are just moving the goalpost.
> Sufficiently minor things aren't "genuine new use cases" that we "sorely need".
A use case is a use case, you don't get to redefine what you consider a "major" and a "minor" use case to justify your bad arguments. That's another example of moving the goalpost.
> Not very much of that depends on computation getting faster.
That statement is so objectively wrong, power efficiency is a trade off with processing power, if we can make a faster chip we can make a similarly capable chip that consumes less power.
> I’m honestly not sure what you’re trying to say we should do here, not try to make computing faster?
No. I'm saying that if you look at tech, generation by generation, faster is sometimes just faster. It doesn't always enable new use cases.
There's no extra subtext. I'm not saying we should stop making things faster. I just don't want the benefits of increased speed/efficiency to be overstated.
I don't think "we sorely need faster matrix multiplication" is true. It's just a nice-to-have. Which is still enough reason to make it! But it's a different level of benefit.
> It is an inevitability, in my opinion, that extra horsepower will enable some kind of new experience, however minor.
Sufficiently minor things aren't "genuine new use cases" that we "sorely need".
Eventually you'll hit a new use case, probably, but you might get zero new use cases for a long time.
> Your example of the original Apple Watch is perfect here. The original Apple Watch barely functioned, for staters, and had a reputation for being slow. It didn’t have GPS, cellular, always-on screen, or a number of other features that need a very powerful and power efficient chip, display, and wireless modem/chip. All of these features are things that have market value.
Not very much of that depends on computation getting faster.
And I never said "faster" has no market value.