I just tried it and it took ~30 seconds. But then I closed it and opened it again, and the second time it took 15 seconds. I have other programs running, but not a huge number. After installing Yosemite performance did not change right away, but lately I have noticed the system performing very slowly. Still, these programs do essentially what they did ten (twenty!) years ago - and computers are so much faster and have so much more memory. These kinds of programs should load in an instant - there should be no perceptible wait at all.

Yes, agree. It is just that corporations try to use science for their own ends. Sometimes that aligns with what is good for the public, and sometimes it doesn't. If the drug companies could have their way, we all would be permanently addicted to expensive drug treatments - they are pretty close to achieving that already, and that is why they invest so little money in finding cures - they don't want cures: they want us to be dependent on them. The agribusiness industry wants the same thing. But of course, the science itself is not evil. And government misuses science as well - all groups that have power try to, when it is in their interest.

All those devices requiring updates, acting flaky (bugs), and hackable. Nice - yeah, that's the future that I want. NOT.

I use a dual core Macbook Pro, with 8Gb of ram.

I don't have any add-ons - at least, I have not installed any. I use these programs vanilla, via my Office 360 subscription. I am running them on a Macbook Pro.

Can they please make the programs load more quickly? Why does it take 30 seconds (at least) for Powerpoint to start? Almost as long for Word? These programs took that long to load on my Mac in 1990. Today, they should load in the blink of an eye. What the heck is wrong?

True. It is a difference of philosophy: those who trust science and corporations and those who don't.

It did? http://www.europeanboost.com/c...

I agree. To me, the ideal car is absolutely quiet. There is already way too much noise in our lives nowadays. Besides, people might as well get used to the fact that the whole concept of a car and driver is destined to become obsolete in not too long: cars will evolve to be living rooms on wheels, driver not required (or even allowed, in urban areas).

And now they can sell farmers the missing ingredient!

Something to look forward to: constant software updates for my front door. And if the power goes out, sorry - you can't get in!

Why, why, why are schools so interested in teaching kids to program? Programming will not even exist in ten years!

Yes, true. But I am still very concerned. After all, people predicted that once we had discovered DNA, we would have a cure for cancer and other diseases in short order. It took much longer than expected - the problem turned out to be harder than we realized and we are not even there yet - but I don't think anyone doubts that we will get there. And the same applies to AI - don't you think?

Yes, indeed there is much to learn about the brain. You are right - and I understand - that the brain is more than a neural net. From your response, I think you know my point though: that it is a machine, and given time, we will figure it out - at least in terms of how it learns, how it models reality, how it infers things, how it creates new ideas, etc. And I think that will happen sooner than most people think: we are very far from understanding it now, but progress is accelerating, and our ability to introspect the brain is accelerating as well. Some of the largest countries - the US included - have initiated large efforts to decompose the function of the brain. So while I think that the scenarios depicted in sci-fi are simpleminded and silly (though entertaining), we still face an existential threat. True AI - if we attain it - is something that cannot be undone or controlled. We are truly playing with the ultimate Pandora's Box.

We already know that it is possible to have a neural network that is as smart as the human brain: our own brains prove it. Within a couple of decades it will be possible to build machines that do exactly what the brain does, neuron for neuron. Will they be conscious? Who knows - but it doesn't matter - because they will be able to reason, and plan, and have goals. This is clearly an existential risk: that is why very smart researchers are sounding the warning. If we don't listen, we have only ourselves to blame when it comes to pass. I recommend the book by Hugo DeGaris, "The Artilect War". DeGaris is a thinking machine researcher - he builds these systems. His predictions are pretty dire indeed.