Will we eve have cities looking like this?

No :(

Human population is expected to peak at 17 million, seven of which have already houses. With the ease of transportation increasing, more services and industry being done online or by machines, and developing nations having to do normal infrastructure (instead of super-infrastructure), there will never be the need to live in futuristic super-cities.

The though actually depresses me, to think modern cities will not grow any longer, or will get at most twice their current size.

no
this is modern architecture
>tfw the money spent on this could have been used to build a beautiful victorian era building

>in the past 50 years nothing new came out cause tech is just being made smaller and more pajeets start coding
nice p l a c e b o

>try to make a square building in CAD
>graphical glitch fucks it up
>go with it anyway

But it isn't bait. Nothing noteworthy has been invented since smartphones back a decade ago. Once pixel counts are high and processors are a little faster you can kiss any kind of advancement goodbye.

no

>Human population is expected to peak at 17 million
completely buttfucking retarded, even if you meant to write 17 billion

>The humans suspect nothing.

>Youth of today doesn't know where the north is. It is the duty of architects to help them.

>Everything changed when the fire nation attacked.

Please explain me why. Please try to convince me, I want to see skyscrappers with clouds below, and smog doesn't count.

>17 million
what is this, youtube comment section?

We have more space to grow left and right than to risk building up and down. As long as war and natural disasters exist it will never make sense to build up aside from the one or two buildings as metaphorical extensions of their respective countries penises.

What are 3 orders of magnitude among pals, right? riight?

well I hope not

Will probably exist but I really do not want to be a part of this mess

Because our future is pic related. Why? Too many contributing factors to list them all, but the easiest one to understand is the depletion of extremely important finite resources.

we already do complete with flying machines, these scifi cities are just pimped up versions of our own cities

You know, I was asking for reasons why my reasoning () is wrong.

Your answer is technically that, but it makes me sad all the same.

Underrated comment.

What's the point of superstructures?

not this shit again.jpg

kek, it is like it intersects with the edge of the map

Except I didn't say that. I just said we've hit a plateau and we will likely stay there for at least a few more decades.

I think your thinking progress has hit a pleteau....

If you could comprehend the things we are making now with neural networks.

It's like we redpilled the machines, and they are turning out to be neo.

I may have mixed my metaphors a bit.

Tell us more. Modern ML looks cool but it just seem like glorified pattern recognition.

Literally why? That looks horrendous.

In a way, it is pattern recognition. But with caveats.

You can recognize patterns over time, which allows for things related to language.

You can recognize patterns' patterns, which allows for things like image recognition.

You can check wether your results are close enough to reality to beat a neural network, which in turn can be trainied to become better at not be fooled. This allow for exceptionally realistic image creations.

You can apply those principles to physics simulations, because they are fundamentally the question to the answer "based on what it is, what it will be the next instant?"

There's also the fact that at a fundamental level, neural networks are just a finite collection of finite functions. So they are structurally good at doing that.

Lastly, while any one neural network can only "find patterns", you can always use one or another, and use them in combination to other basic stuff like functions, memory, databases and so on. You can have other networks (or other algorithms) dictate when a neural network should be use, and ever modify some of its weights. Works is being done on using existing neural networks on other stuff, to take advantage of the already-existing knowledge inside them.

If regular algorithms can be called "computers", neural networks can be called "solvers". They calibrate through pattern recognition, but what they fundamentally are is a function that looks at the data and answers a question.

*answer to the question

Efficiency

He's right. There's not much left to science that hasn't already been discovered that will change things as monumentally as past discoveries. Most everything now is down to engineering. Sure we learn all manner of cool shit every year, but it doesn't have any practical applications that are worth much. Even biology has reached its limit a long time ago. We just need to engineer shit from what we've already learned.

And, this is how we know you are completely full of turds, kid.

>reddit spacing
>talking about a Veeky Forums subject like it is /x/

Stop with the fantasy shit and KYS.

>Where are the superstructures?
We don't have "superstructures" because they are in general a dumb idea. Even supertall skyscrapers we have now are generally built for prestige and bragging rights, not because they are optimal. If anything, in the future cities will probably have less skyscrapers.

I'd rather live in my own spaceship.

There are two things every generation has claimed:

1) We've reached the peak of human understanding.

2) The end of the world is nigh.

How often have they been right?

We're in a position where our cosmology demands that the bulk of the universe be made up of stuff we've never managed to detect with properties unlike any sort of matter or energy we've ever seen. Where we've flipped our model of the universe on its head four times in the last century alone. We were, less than two decades ago, absolutely astonished to discover a fundamental fact about the nature of the universe that defied every expectation, namely that its expansion is accelerating. We're still using silicon chips with binary stacks despite having a dozen, magnitudes better, solutions on drawing boards and experimental scales for decades, yet we find outselves claiming we're nearing our maximum computing potential. We still don't have proper fusion, we still don't truly understand some of the core mechanics of our sun, we still don't have a handle on, well, nearly anything you can name, really - every single field of science is full of unsolved mysteries and conundrums, and every time we find a solution for one, it merely opens the door to a dozen more. ...and fucking CRISPR is on the table, just waiting to fundamentally change mankind itself.

Science, as we know it, has been around a handful of centuries. It's still in its infancy. It would take Carl Sagan to count all the billions and billions of miles we are away from reaching the end of that particular road...

Provided, of course, the second constant claim of every generation doesn't come true before then.

Yes when baby-boomer are out. These are the only obstacles to a real breakthrough in the 21st century.

>the chad cantilever

>Nothing noteworthy has been invented since smartphones back a decade ago
driverless cars
electric cars becoming mainstream
laser weapons on warships
consumer drones
re-usable space rockets
huge developments in AI/machine leaning
personal assistants

Wrong picture

>biology reaching its limits a long time ago
>what is crispr
/getout

Material science has definitely nearly reached some kind of plateau. Making super structures like that might never actually be a reality.
There's only so much you can feasibly do with matter without having insane amounts of energy output.

crispr wont bring you shit

I want blue shiny hamsters goddamnit

>they aren't super structures unless they have impractical profiles that change width for no particular reason, inefficiently using air space because "future"

hopefully not

this isn't much different from what he have already. Just shinier and curvier architecture.

For the sake of argument, based on that guys logic he would counter with Neural Networks being invented in the 60s though.

Yeah but you'll die before

you could always counter with advances made in NN since then like deep learning and neuromorphic processors or even things in neuroscience like neuroprosthetics and brain-computer interfaces.

Todos Santos when?

Probably never, as those buildings don't look to be as space efficient as other designs would be
looks to be worthless flare
those look just as fancy, and their designs are useful for more shit than just looking neat

>paris
>advancement
there aren't even any humans left in paris, let alone innovators

unless we become massively overpopulated there's no reason to have cities that dense

no amount of technology will make living in such a crowded place preferable to comfy countryside or even suburbs

Why don't we have thicc skyscrapers like this? They are all really thin by comparison.

Suburbs are terrible, and people are realizing this. The percentage of the world population to live in suburbs has peaked, and will be very low in a few decades. Streets and parking lots ruin cities. Fewer cars, roads, and parking lots means that people can walk places, public transportation is more viable, small local businesses fair better, and culture thrives. People get more exercise, spend less time in traffic, and lead richer lives.

Life in a walkable city is great, life in the country side is great, and the promise of suburbia was that it would combine them, but in reality it has the benefits of neither. Cultural trends in the US and Europe indicate that people are catching on to this, and future cities will be much denser for this reason.

Assuming that you meant to say "billion", do you really think that 7 billion people have houses?

Not him but you missed the point entirely.

There is a LOT left to invent but with diminishing investment there will be diminishing returns. People want fun and games, not progress.

>driverless cars
>electric cars becoming mainstream
>laser weapons on warships
>consumer drones
>re-usable space rockets
>huge developments in AI/machine leaning
>personal assistants
Those are examples where progress was made because of huge investment. Much boils down to better batteries and AI, both of which have been in development for decades, not because of recent crash programmes.

And we could have had all of this 30 years ago had there been more investment in R&D.

...

Some great work on the scale of a space elevator won't happen as long as sand niggers exist. Urban planning that makes use of public transportation won't ever be popular as long as regular niggers exist. And with sand niggers attacking more and more public spaces, they'll probably hold back that front as well. We might see a city like that from an isolated country like Japan, but don't expect anything from the US or Europe. China or Korea maybe, but they have other issues holding them back for right now.

Walkable is fine if the rest of the people on the streets is fine. Public transportation is fine when the people you are riding with are fine. Denser cities also lead to smaller living quarters. When people don't like to be around many of the inhabitants of their city, they will spend more time in their living quarters and will thus want a bigger house which they can't afford in a major city. So they leave to the suburbs and commute to work.

CRISPR is a massive meme. We've had things like zinc finger nucleases and TALENS for more than a decade that can do the same stuff, just not as easily. Anything people gush about being possible because of CRISPR now is just because of science journalists taking some excitement over a lower (but still high) failure rate for producing recombinant DNA and running with it. It's convenient, for sure, but it's not the road to sci-fi magitech genetic engineering like a lot of people seem to think it is.

When cities are not sprawled out it's easy to leave them. It's only when you start building suburbs that it becomes impractical to travel out of the city on a daily basis. In my experience, it's better to live in a 400 square foot apartment and spend a good percentage of your free time outside of it than to live in a 2000 square foot house with a big yard and not be able to get to a park (or anything else) without driving. You end up spending more time than you would want at home, and no matter how big your house is that's not a good life. You can find places where there aren't people even in cities with suburban sprawl, and it would be a lot more true if there was less sprawl and more green space within easy reach of city centers.

We'll have better.

Not under capitalism.

Kek

>weird shaped buildings
they could do this now i suppose
>flying cars
already possible just not a good idea

helicopters are basically flying cars

But I thought no building is supposed to surpass the Eiffel Tower in terms of height in Paris?

four, maybe five

>>weird shaped buildings
>they could do this now i suppose
Sure, pic. related.

Paris can't be built that high, it's not possible due to the catacombs.

>Paris can't be built that high, it's not possible due to the catacombs.

Have you even been to Paris??