>>514724943
>Can machines think?
Provably yes, but to think as well as human adult brains do it with what appears to be an efficiency from the molecular level, you need a million metric shit-tons of computers all working as one, full throttle for 3 months straight, just to isolate a conversion system that if probed by a human, feels like it's doing organic thinking.
So said another way yes, a billion tons worth of computers consuming a gigawatt of energy for three months, can do the same thing the human brain is doing along a precisely defined set of tasks. And since the computer doesn't have to concern itself with the million other things that a human has to do perfectly, it can outperform along some narrow domains, and since the isolated model can be distributed and run on phones who can follow the recipes given to it by the model in relatively constant-time, the yes.
In the future, computers will think in the same way human brains were selected for thinking, because what the brain does is associated with survival.
It'll be another thousand years before $1000 worth of clankers and toasters in a single form factor can outperform all people at all tasks, so it's imperitave that over the next thousand years, where the humans start and the machine ends, will be blurred such that only pasta eating philosophers can say where the one is and isn't, and where the other is and isn't.
9/3/2025, 7:02:45 PM
No.514724753
>>514724967
>>514725019
>>514725130
>>514725190
>>514725353
