File talk:PPTExponentialGrowthof Computing.jpg

Shouldn't the line for "All human brains" be some kind of growth curve as well? 38.98.21.170 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one attribute a value of power per dollar to an organic brain? 81.154.142.236 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I know I've been on this rant before, but here's a new example of a god-awful Kurzweil graph. Let's start with extrapolating the tiny bit of data available into a concave-up function (instead maybe a more conservative extrapolation?). Or how about the notion of "exponential growth" when this is plotted on log-linear, so an exponential-looking graph on such a scale is actually exponentially-exponential. It looks like Kurzweil is just trying to mislead, since a straight line is so much less impressive, but Wikipedia editors should have more sense than to include tripe like that. If Kurzweil wants his stuff to be taken seriously, even here, he should take his publications and audience seriously himself. And of course the problems you guys mention above are quite clear... though maybe he's taking the economic cost of raising a human from birth? Then human computation power scales rather unimpressively. Point is, we shouldn't humor this sloppy work, and I'm thinking that all his published graphs need to be purged since as editors we have to depend on reliability when we cite a graph as an authoritative source - Kurzweil is already listed on the fringes of science. SamuelRiv (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)