this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
854 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59599 readers
3455 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, they also kept telling investors all they need to simulate a human brain was to simulate the amount of neurons in a human brain...
The stupidly rich loved that, because they want computer backups for "immortality". And they'd dump billions of dollars into making that happen
About two months ago tho, we found out that the brain uses microtubules in the brain to put tryptophan into super position, and it can maintain that for like a crazy amount of time, like longer than we can do in a lab.
The only argument against a quantum component for human consciousness, was people thought there was no way to have even just get regular quantum entanglement in a human brain.
We'll be lucky to be able to simulate that stuff in 50 years, but it's probably going to be even longer.
Every billionaire who wanted to "live forever" this way, just got aged out. So they'll throw their money somewhere else now.
https://ask.metafilter.com/380238/Is-this-paper-on-quantum-propeties-of-the-brain-bad-science-or-not
Completely off topic from ai, but got me curious about brain quantum and found this discussion. Either way, AI still sucks shit and is just a shortcut for stealing.
That's a social media comment from some Ask Yahoo knockoff...
Like, this isn't something no one is talking about, you don't have to solely learn about that from unpopular social media sites (including my comment).
I don't usually like linking videos, but I'm feeling like that might work better here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2Kpkksf3k
But that PBS video gives a really good background and then talks about the recent discovery.
AskMeFi predated Yahoo Answers by several years (and is several orders of magnitude better than it ever was).
And that linked accounts last comment was advocating for Biden to stage a pre-emptive coup before this election...
https://www.metafilter.com/activity/306302/comments/mefi/
It doesn't matter if it was created before Ask Yahoo or if it's older.
It's random people making random social media comments, sometimes stupid people make the rare comment that sounds like they know what they're talking about. And I already agreed no one had to take my word on it either.
But that PBS video does a really fucking good job explaining it.
Cuz if I can't explain to you why a random social media comment isn't a good source, I'm sure as shit not going to be able to explain anything like Penrose's theory on consciousness to you.
It does if you're calling it a "knockoff" of a lower-quality site that was created years later, which was what I was responding to.
edit: btw, you've linked to the profile of the asker of that question, not the answer to it that /u/half_built_pyramids quoted.
Great.
So the social media site is older than I thought, and the person who made the comment on that site is a lot stupider than it seemed.
Like, Facebooks been around for about 20 years. Would you take a link to a Facebook comment over PBS?
My man, I said nothing about the science or the validity of that comment, just that it's wrong to call Ask MetaFilter "some Ask Yahoo knockoff". If you want to get het up about an argument I never made, you do you.