Thanks to @General_Effort@lemmy.world for the links!
Here’s a link to Caltech’s press release: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/thinking-slowly-the-paradoxical-slowness-of-human-behavior
Here’s a link to the actual paper (paywall): https://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(24)00808-0
Here’s a link to a preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10234
I’m not fucking reading a paper with such ridiculous claims, I gave it a chance, but it simply isn’t worth it. And I understand their claims and argumentation perfectly. They simply don’t have a clue about the things they make claims about.
I’ve been investigating and researching these issues for 40 years with an approach from scientific evidence, so please piss off with your claims of me not understanding it.
What is your realm of research? How have you represented abstract thought by digital storage instead of information content?
Mostly philosophical, but since I’m also a programmer, I’ve always had the quantized elements in mind too.
In the year 2000 I estimated human level or general/strong AI by about 2035. I remember because it was during a very interesting philosophy debate at Copenhagen University. Where to my surprise there also were a number of physics majors.
That’s supposed to be an actually conscious AI. I suppose the chances of being correct were slim at the time, but now it does seem to be more likely than ever.
Without evaluating the data or methodology, I would say that the chance you gave it was not a fair one. Especially since you decided to label it “moronic.” That’s quite a claim.
It’s 100% moronic, they use terminology that clearly isn’t fit for the task.
“100% moronic” is an even bolder claim for someone who has not evaluated any of the claims in the paper.
One might even say that calling scientific claims “100%” false is a not especially scientific approach.
If the conclusion is moronic, there’s a pretty good chance the thinking behind it is too.
They did get the thing about thinking about one thing at a time right though. But that doesn’t change the error of the conclusion.
Again, I would say using the “100%” in science when evaluating something is not a very good term to use. I think you know that.
Yeah OK that’s technically correct.
It’s also been pointed out that they are using ‘bit’ in a way people here are not thinking they are using it: https://lemmy.world/comment/14152865
Oh boy.
Which is exactly what bit means.
Which is not bits, but the equivalent 1 digit at base 10.
This just shows the normal interpretation of bits.
If it’s used as units of information you need to specify it as bits of information. Which is NOT A FREAKING QUANTIZED unit!
And is just showing the complete uselessness of this piece of crap paper.