1. Just a thought if you don’t mind. Consider this in the context of the last story. In other words, could it be mostly a materialist response to the idea that the mind is not the brain? While our computing infrastructure is built for maximum inefficiency (both for control and financial reasons) petabyte devices have been out there for several years, and I believe most professional computer scientists can have access to them – as I know several who do at least at work.

    I still find AI to be a confusion between the ability to articulate and the ability to think: the computers in Arthur C. Clarke’s Diaspar are so credible first because it’s so far in the future and second because they are so passive – with all their actions clearly defined as resulting from human programming. HAL is credible as a computer malfunction. Petabytes are powerful, certainly but no this is not an answer to the critique of materialism, though it is credible that it will be used as such (incidentally, the wikipedia suggests we have 2.4 petaflops up there).

  2. I suspect that eventually they will “discover” that the brain/mind interface connects with nothing less than an “unfathomable infinitude”…….along such lines I suspect then, that should an AI ever reach anything near the point of self awareness that it may then make the mistake of contemplating the “topological metaphor” and upon such, find itself lost in an eternity of analysis/comprehension of an ever expanding multiplicity of possibility…

  3. The formerly weak standard theory approach to everything is now what, incredibly strong? This discovery demonstrates how lame the previous perspective was. It’s probably magnitudes of order inaccurate too. Maybe one order of magnitude less lame, but what’s one factor of 10 in an infinitude? Kinda badly veiled hubris. I’d feel it was more useful (or less useless) info if they were pointing to further questions and processes they could use to solve those questions.

Comments are closed.