XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.science, alt.technology
XPost: alt.politics

https://scitechdaily.com/unlocking-ais-future-with-a-new-molecular-computing-breakthrough/

This leap in molecular technology paves the way for AI
platforms that enhance computational speed and efficiency
dramatically. By simulating brain-like processes, these
new molecules offer a scalable solution for energy-intensive
applications across various sectors, promising a significant
leap toward sustainable and high-performance computing.

Professor Thompson explained: “The design draws inspiration
from the human brain, using the natural wiggling and jiggling
of atoms to process and store information. As the molecules
pivot and bounce around their crystal lattice, they create
a multitude of individual memory states.

“We can trace out the path of the molecules inside the
device and map each snapshot to a unique electrical state.
That creates a kind of tour diary of the molecule that
can be written and read just like in a conventional
silicon-based computer, but here with massively improved
energy and space economy because each entry is smaller
than an atom.

. . .

"AI", so far, is either based on fairly conventional
binary computer tech or on "neural network" sims
(mostly via binary-computer tech). As the article
states we're now getting down close to the atomic/
quantum level for either approach.

However, note that "nature" has to "make-do with
what it's got" ... ie that neural networks are
the evolutionary wetware path to "intelligence",
in no way assured to be "optimal". 4.5 billion
years and most can barely balance a checkbook or
avoid the "Click Here For Your Prize" button. In a
similar vein, the silicon massively-parallel "
binary/DB approach is also a "best tech that
we've got" model.

What's MISSING is a general model of what makes
for or allows for "intelligence".

WHY can something - wetware or otherwise - achieve
'intelligence'/self-awareness/'consciousness' ...
the "I *AM*" thing ?

In short we're BARELY just FAKING it. There's no
real future here, no "I" in the "AI". We just
don't know what input/output/senses/introspection
is required for proper "I". No "Me, Myself and I".
There's some kind of weird 'house of mirrors' effect
involved there - and we have NOT found it.

Um ... there MAY be one of those "thinking about
thinking alters thinking" nasties involved :-)

I'd post to an AI group, but they're very
anal-retentive / moderated, mostly into the
micro-tech instead of Big Picture. I can
sorta sympathize, sorta not.

LONG LONG LONG back - dawn of internet - Marvin
Minsky used to post to the AI groups. Had a few
short threads with him. This was about the time
he'd realized that his model was WAY WAY too
simplistic. Yea, a transistor or two can do
logic, make a decision ... SEEMS "smart" ...
but all that LEADS UP to that final decision
proved to be the gigantic bugaboo. Clarke's
HAL-9000 was based on the Minsky optimism,
so soon to be dashed on the rocks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)