There is so much sloppy writing and neurobullshit in this article. It may indeed be possible to train a machine to guess well at a single individual's thoughts, which is impressive, but the data won't generalize across individuals for a simple reason: degeneracy. In the brain (and in all other biological systems), the same output or function is realized in multiple ways, whether in a single individual or across individuals. When I wiggle my finger twice, different combinations of neurons are involved. When someone else wiggles their finger, there's no justifiable reason to believe that their neuronal activity is like mine. The article is extremely sloppy in implying that certain things are common across human beings.

It's been known for a while that V1 carries auditory signals and primary auditory cortex carries visual signals:

https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/...

These brain regions are named less for a unique function and more for the research interests of the scientists who name them.

>Thanks to my severance package, I can't collect unemployment right now

I don't know where you live, but in my state in the US, you absolutely can collect unemployment while you are on severance. I've done so twice with full disclosure to the unemployment agency. Maybe double-check your situation?

I read about this phenomenon in the young adult novel "The Secret of Terror Castle", published in 1964. Three teenage detectives investigated a mysterious castle where nobody could spend the night without running away in terror. The culprit? Someone playing the lowest notes on a pipe organ to produce the jitters. This book was the first in a much beloved series called "Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators".

AI learned to code by reading human code examples. Where will the training examples come from if AI codes directly to a human-unreadable language?

So, companies that violate this act are... debased?

Answer: diversify.
40% domestic stock, 20% international stock, 40% fixed income is an example mix for non-cash investments for an adult.
Avoid precious metals, crypto, etc. Too unpredictable.
You might not get rich, but you may have a decent life.

Quick: the domain IA.com is still available! Do I hear $07 million?

These arguments seem like a reasonable point mixed in with neurobullshit.

The reasonable point is that people have become very (too?) dependent on their smartphones. The bullshit is that it's part of the mind. No, it's part of your niche. So are lots of other things.

FWIW, I live a perfectly fulfilling life without my phone. I never carry it with me, except when I need a GPS. About 90% of the time, it sits on my desk at home, not in my pocket. I walk over to check it a few times a day for text messages. It's just a device, not a body part.

>Microsoft's library of books is so heavy that it once caused a campus building to sink, according to an unproven legend among employees.

This is a really common kind of myth. I've heard the same story about libraries at a dozen universities. Snopes even has an article about it.

This happened to me today. I googled the possible interactions between two particular drugs, and the AI summary said they can be dangerous to take together. Every medical website I visited said they're safe to take together. So did my pharmacist and my doctor.

Consulting is a great way to tank your academic reputation if you aren't careful. If Professor X consults for company Y, and then the professor's research happens to agree with or confirm something Company Y does, Professor X may be seen as a company shill. Every academic who consults has to walk this tightrope.

I love, love, love watching movies on a big theater screen. Except the last time I went, the theater showed 30 minutes of previews for blood & gore horror movies. (The movie I was seeing was a comedy/drama, not horror.) Who the hell comes up with these ridiculous preview pairings? After the third knifing I was ready to walk out.

This survey is meaningless. You don't ask a general summary question ("How much do you trust the media?") and report the result. You ask specific, neutral questions ("What is your level of trust or distrust of the NY Times on topic X?" "What is your level of trust or distrust of Fox News on topic Y?") and then aggregate the data to produce a summary answer. That is Survey Making 101.

All general summary questions are invalid, period.

Plus, brains don't process colors! They process light waves. Color doesn't exist in the outside world, light waves do. Color is a relation between the world and a brain.