This isn't the first time, though. Brain implants have been around a long time, and brain rejection of the foreign object has happened every single time without exception.

This is much closer to a flerfer arguing that the Earth will be flat this time.

How is any of that relevant?

If that's the game you want to play, OK.

Bacteria outnumber all other living things. Statistically, there's only one gender and all else is an abberation. This is confirmed, as the Y chromosome is simply an X chromosome that is badly degraded.

Humans are tetrapods, and therefore fish. Land-living fish are an abberation and can be ignored.

You see? That's a really, really stupid game to play, because it is trivial to show that it leads to nonsense.

Abberation is the entire basis on which all science is built.

You can only speak more freely if you agree with Musk. Disagree with him and you're banned. That's narry a "freedom" worthy of the name.

The article seems to be talking about identifiable sub-sequences that are used to compose more complex sequences. Whether they're the equivalent of phonemes, syllables, or words is, from the looks of things unknown. But journalists have to write accessibly, which automatically means they can't write accurately.

Analysis shows that their speech is extremely complex and definitely useful. We have already identified sequences representing personal identifiers. These are not animal grunts, they're extremely complex speech patterns that we know carry complex information.

I have no idea where you get your information from, but it's obviously not remotely accurate of from any actual researchers. It also sounds like it's a good 40-50 years out of date, at the very least.

There's actually a lot of information that they communicated in efforts to mitigate the problem of hunters.

We know that whales introduce themselves with a standardised series of clicks and whistles, followed by a sequence that is unique to that whale. Other whales in the area then send a standardised sequence followed by that same unique sequence.

The order is consistent, as are the standardised sequences, and all cetaceans enter a group by this method.

This is, without any fear of doubt, indicative of a notion of protocols and that requires at least a basic distinction between nouns and not-nouns.

How much further you can go is unclear. AI can probably detect standardised constructs, but we wouldn't necessarily know what T they referred to.

The brain starts with the semantics. Some are innate, others are learned, but the semantics is always first. The syntax is then layered on top of this. This is why the high-intelligence end of the autistic spectrum is linked to delayed speech followed by a very rapid process to complex speech. The semantics is being built to a far higher degree, the syntax is postponed until the last possible moment.

AI, as it currently exists, needs a very very large number of examples, far more than the brain by tens of orders of magnitude, and hallucinates far more, because ALL it knows is the syntax. There is no handling of the semantics at all.

This approach can NEVER lead to actual intelligence of any sort, let alone superintelligence. They are solving the wrong problem. And that is why they fail, and why they will only ever fail.

If you want actual intelligence, the syntax must come LAST. And the modern breed of AI researcher is simply far too stubborn and arrogant to fathom that.

Since communism is, by definition, classless, you cannot both be classist and communist.

Racism is, again by definition, incompatible with abstraction.

My conclusion is that you're pretty shaky on definitions.

They'd disclosed it but the first one hadn't finished testifying under oath about it. And that matters. The latter has status as evidence in court.

Because if they're explaining to non-scientists, they might as well be explaining to babies. The foundational knowledge taught in schools simply isn't up to the standard needed.

If you can't make useful predictions within the parameters of your model, you can't test the ideas. Ergo, the shut up and calculate side does have a good argument.

Previously, in physics, there has been a three-way dance between theorists who develop the mathematical description, theorists who develop the mechanical description, and practical physicists who carry out observations both to test the theories and to apply them in practical terms. This dance kept everything moving.

This may or may not be the correct way to approach quantum mechanics. The rules are very different in that domain.

On the other hand, it's easy to spot the hostility between the groups and it's obvious that the anticipated new physics isn't getting found. New models are rare and are struggling. The dance hasn't completely stopped, but it is definitely in trouble.

But, of course, that might equally be down to the increased competition, the need to publish trivial results quickly rather than do anything profound, and the greatly reduced investment in blue sky science.

I'm going to suggest it's a mix of stuff. We need a lot more funding, a lot less aggro, and we either need to get the mechanical description partner back on their feet or we need to find an alternative to them if that sort of description just doesn't work in this arena.

But I think the science dance needs three sides. I think we're going to find that the calculate lobby can't advance a whole lot further on their own, and that they cannot produce a theory of everything without some idea of what an everything is.