Recent comments in /f/Futurology

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_jdq45y4 wrote

Some believe all sorts of bullshit. Technological andvancement in general obsoletes various tasks one by one. Indoor plumbing replaced carrying buckets, printing machine replaced scribing etc etc. The vast majority of preindustrial jobs have been obsoleted and people are now doing other things.

That's fine, when a job gets done, it's a good thing, means you can finally get to work on other necessary things you so far couldn't find time and resources for. That works on an individual level, and it also works on the level of an entire economy.

6

Zagdil t1_jdq3swz wrote

So far organs have proven to be too complicated to be easily printed let alone made artificially entirely. The only internal organ we even stand a chance at right now is the heart. The heart is surprisingly easy as it's just a sack of muscles, with blood vessels running around it. All the other organs are far too intricate and finely structured.

Looking into the future I would say, that organs grown from your own DNA in Zero G in orbit would be our best bet. A lot of things have to happen to make this affordable.

3

ecnecn t1_jdq1wlk wrote

There are ads for Google Pixel Pro Smart Phone and its AI powered abilities to change and manipulate pictures. It feels really outdated compared to the actual development in AI. It feels like "KODAK-moment on steroids" because you can tell that google had all the tech already in place but their management decided to take parts of it and create apps for their new mobile phone rather than becoming the first AI web service. Furthermore their management - for some weird reason - favored black SEO methods that actually killed the results. I wonder if google management read the blogs of OpenAI and Stanford AI blog (available for everyone) because they literally described their future steps and what is about to happen in AI development. Google sleeping in its own IT bubble.

1

MadDocsDuck t1_jdq1hmk wrote

I'm not sure if I missed something but in my lecture on tissue engineering it sounded like printed organs are something like 20-30+ years away. There are problems with the cell density, the cell type diversity and the vascularization. We don't even have proper organ models for medical testing yet. And then you will have to go through all the clinical testing and legal processes. Don't mean to be a downer but I thing that is quite some time away, at least from what I've heard.

Also, I wouldn't expect them to surpass the real thing for quite some time after the introduction. They may be better than a failing organ but it is quite safe to assume that our organs are already performing at a very high efficiency rate given the biological compoments.

18

czl t1_jdq094y wrote

So this is like making software programmers more productive by giving them faster tools like compilers so there is less waiting time?

However once the design is done and tested and chips are being "printed" (?) this speed up does not help with that?

Asking because I want to know how this innovation will impact the production capacity of existing fabs.

The impact will be better designs due to more design productivity but actual production capacity does not change, yes?

6

elehman839 t1_jdpxkm9 wrote

Sounds like the computation may sometimes need to be done multiple times per design:

Even a change to the thickness of a material can lead to the need for a new set of photomasks

Moreover, it sounds you can also get better chips, not just the same chip sooner. Prior to this speedup, inverse lithography could be practically used in only certain parts of the design:

it’s such a slog that it’s often reserved for use on only a few critical layers of leading-edge chips or just particularly thorny bits of them

Furthermore, you can get an increased yield of functional parts, which should lower manufacturing cost:

That depth of focus should lead to less variation across the wafer and therefore a greater yield of working chips per wafer

20