No, AI was not an inevitable consequence of human intelligence
; rather, it is the product of deliberate human choices and the application of technology. While the human drive to create tools and improve life motivates the development of AI, the path of its creation and the specific technologies used are not preordained and could be altered or stopped.
The brain has billions of neurons, and that is why it can think.
The research was conducted in the laboratory of Markus Meister (PhD '87), the Anne P. and Benjamin F. Biaggini Professor of Biological Sciences, and it was led by graduate student Jieyu Zheng. A paper describing the study appears in the journal Neuron on December 17.
A bit is a basic unit of information in computing. A typical Wi-Fi connection, for example, can process 50 million bits per second. In the new study, Zheng applied techniques from the field of information theory to a vast amount of scientific literature on human behaviors such as reading and writing, playing video games, and solving Rubik's Cubes, to calculate that humans think at a speed of 10 bits per second.
"This is an extremely low number," Meister says. "Every moment, we are extracting just 10 bits from the trillion that our senses are taking in and using those 10 to perceive the world around us and make decisions. This raises a paradox: What is the brain doing to filter all of this information?"
There are over 85 billion neurons in the brain, with one third of these dedicated to high-level thinking and located in the cortex. Individual neurons are powerful information processors and can easily transmit more than 10 bits per second of information. But why don't they? And why do we have so many if we're thinking so slowly? Meister suggests that, given the discovery of this "speed limit" in the brain, neuroscience research ought to consider these paradoxes in future studies.
Another conundrum that the new study raises is: Why does the brain process one thought at a time rather than many in parallel the way our sensory systems do? For example, a chess player envisioning a set of future moves can only explore one possible sequence at a time rather than several at once. The study suggests that this is perhaps due to how our brains evolved.
Research suggests that the earliest creatures with a nervous system used their brains primarily for navigation, to move toward food and away from predators. If our brains evolved from these simple systems to follow paths, it would make sense that we can only follow one "path" of thought at a time. "Human thinking can be seen as a form of navigation through a space of abstract concepts," Zheng and Meister write. The team emphasizes the need for future research into how this constraint—one train of thought at a time—is encoded in the architecture of the brain.
Hmmmm, a lot of faith invested in all sorts there Debby.
But events prove you to be misguided.
I would strongly assert that material evolution is unstoppable.
Alteration and temporary cessation might be procedural necessities.
Though do you seriously think that humans have the collective will to say no, that's it, no need for further development, human existence is now perfect and does not require improvement.
Yes, human evolution is an ongoing process, driven by natural selection, genetic drift, and adaptation to changing environments and technologies. While dramatic speciation is unlikely due to a large, interconnected global population, humans continue to evolve on a genetic level through changes in traits like age at first reproduction, blood cholesterol levels, and immune system function.
Humans are one aspect of material evolution.
Material evolution occurred for eons prior to the emergence of life, and will perhaps continue way beyond the existence of humans.
Unless China changes global trends with its dominance.
If China changes global trends then that will be progressional.
As it is China still looks elsewhere for encouragement and ideas.
Evolutionary trends will be dictated by genii, wherever they may be found.
Creating trends to satisfy the whims of the masses is currently a necessary strategy, based upon global monetarism.
"These algorithms dictate how AI systems process information," Very definition of not thinking
That statement is a philosophical perspective rather than a universally accepted fact. The idea that the absence of a biological "thought process" makes AI
more intelligent is a point of ongoing debate in fields like artificial intelligence, philosophy of mind, and cognitive science.
A universally accepted fact.
You have no evidence to back up such a statement.
In fact, I got in touch with my friend Sweewee, who is a Drogoid synthetic root vegetable from the Planet Foom in the Lala sector, and it wholeheartedly disagrees with you.
I use Abrahamic communication methodolgy, which involves altering neuro links with plant based organic compounds...Compounds similar to those exuded by Drogoids.
In fact, Drogoids can rightly be regarded as AI...Thinking mans hybrid Parsnips as it were, similar to Sheldon Welderbeck but with green hair and no penis...They cross pollenate and are hermaphroditic, absorbing nutrients and exuding oxygen...Such is a universally accepted fact.
Venture capitalists poured $192.7 billion into AI startups so far this year — setting new global records and putting 2025 on track to be the first year where more than half of total VC dollars went into the industry, according to data provider PitchBook.O
Can't beat venturing with capital.
Pour it into the system, swish it around for a while, and the masses will eventually piss it back again, into the venture capitalists buckets...
It's the way forwards.
They say follow the money.
Or your nose.
Be careful. You might end up smelling someone’s butt.
So you have been to the BIG BANG Club!
I heard the club stinks. No, I wouldn’t go there.
That was just a seepage issue.
Has since been thoroughly cleaned and now smells as pure and fresh as a Nun's centre parting.
Two Nun's in the bath, and the one says, let me was away your sins Sister.
And the other replied, Holy mother of God OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh yes yes yes.
I've seen the video.
Did that make you want to be clean as well?
I doubt that I was considering my levels of cleanliness at the time.
You are a late developer by any definition.
Not sure if the current discussion is still about the original topic, but, no, “artificial” intelligence is not intelligent. For one, if it was, it would not be called artificial intelligence, it would just be called intelligence.
Plus, artificial intelligence is really just if-then-else, but written in a different manner; in the end it comes down to the exact same thing. Traditional computer programs are equivalent to artificial intelligence in terms of what they can achieve, you can write any AI as if-then-else, and it would behave identically.
If-then-else is obviously not intelligence. It’s just parroting. I can give a complete retard a complicated list of instructions to follow, and assuming he makes no mistakes (let’s say for the sake of argument that he does not), he would “appear” to be intelligent in some contexts but he has no idea what the fuck he’s doing and if you take away the fixed program, he remains the same retard as before.
This is exactly what computers and artificial intelligence do. True intelligence requires more than if-then-else and in fact requires something that is undescribable and unquantifiable (as yet, at least).
An analogy would be like the difference between the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers. Each real number contains vastly more information than any natural number; compare, e.g. a human thought to a dead, bare step in an algorithm, and you have the same thing. We can’t even agree on the definition of words, and that’s because each idea we have is infinitely complicated/detailed and impossible to actually put down to paper.
For one, if it was, it would not be called artificial intelligence, it would just be called intelligence.
That would give it away now wouldn't it?
In 2025 alone 202.3 billion was invested in the AI sector. AI spending globally is expected to exceed $2 trillion by 2026.
