Both look like they are copied from an IKEA catalogue.
But who the fuck cares except themselves?
This might as well be staged just to get attention.

with an assumed entropy of about 5 bits per English word. A 120 wpm typing speed therefore translates to 600 bits per minute, or 10 bits per second. A 160 wpm speaking speed translates to 13 bits/s.

The problem here is that the bits of information needs to be clearly defined, otherwise we are not talking about actually quantifiable information. Normally a bit can only have 2 values, here they are talking about very different types of bits, which AFAIK is not a specific quantity.

the human brain tends to trick itself into perceiving a much higher complexity that it is actually processing

This is of course a thing.

Oh no this is not annoying, this is a very interesting question.
I suppose with the crow, it doesn’t need to understand volume of water and rocks displacing it, but merely has a more basic understanding that adding rocks raise the water, or maybe even just makes the food easier to get at.
So I suppose we can agree that there are multiple levels of understanding.
But still the crow must have observed this, unless it actually figured it out? And some thought process must have led it to believe that dropping stones in the water might have the desired effect.
Now even if the crow had observed another crow doing this, and seen this demonstrated. Ir mist have had a thought process concluding that it could try this too, and perhaps it would work.

But there are other situations that are more challenging IMO, and that’s with LLM, how do we decide thought and understand with those.
LLM is extremely stupid and clever at the same time. With loads of examples of them not understanding the simplest things, like how meany R’s are in Strawberry, and the AI answering stubbornly that there are only 2! But on the other hand being able to spell it out and count them, then being able to realize that there are indeed 3, which it previously denied.

IMO animal studies are crucial to understand our own intelligence, because the principle is the same, but animals are a simpler “model” of it so to speak.
It seems to me that thought is a requirement to understanding. You think about something before you understand it.
Without the thought process it would have to be instinctive. But I don’t think it can be argued that crows dropping rocks in water is instinctive.
But even instinctive understanding is a kind of understanding, it’s just not by our consciousness, but by certain behavior traits having an evolutionary advantage, causing that behavior to become more common.

So you are absolutely right that thought is not always required for some sort of “understanding”. which is a good point.
But what I meant was conscious understanding as in really understanding a concept and for humans understanding abstract terms, and for that type of understanding thought is definitely a requirement.

Oh boy.

Base 2 gives the unit of bits

Which is exactly what bit means.

base 10 gives units of “dits”

Which is not bits, but the equivalent 1 digit at base 10.

This just shows the normal interpretation of bits.

If it’s used as units of information you need to specify it as bits of information. Which is NOT A FREAKING QUANTIZED unit!

And is just showing the complete uselessness of this piece of crap paper.

Yeah OK that’s technically correct.

If the conclusion is moronic, there’s a pretty good chance the thinking behind it is too.
They did get the thing about thinking about one thing at a time right though. But that doesn’t change the error of the conclusion.

I absolutely do, which is why I concentrated on the THOUGHT part, as in understanding. You obviously can’t have understanding without thought. That’s the difference between data and information.
Please I have 40 years of experience in philosophic issues regarding intelligence and consciousness, also from a programmers perspective.

It’s 100% moronic, they use terminology that clearly isn’t fit for the task.

I’m not fucking reading a paper with such ridiculous claims, I gave it a chance, but it simply isn’t worth it. And I understand their claims and argumentation perfectly. They simply don’t have a clue about the things they make claims about.
I’ve been investigating and researching these issues for 40 years with an approach from scientific evidence, so please piss off with your claims of me not understanding it.

You are confusing input with throughput.

No I’m not, I read that part. Input is for instance hearing a sound wave, which the brain can process at amazing speed, separating a multitude of simultaneous sounds, and translate into meaningful information. Be it music, speech, or a noise that shouldn’t be there. It’s true that this part is easier to measure, as we can do something similar, although not nearly as well on computers. As we can determine not only content of sounds, but also extrapolate from it in real time. The sound may only be about 2x22k bit, but the processing required is way higher. And that’s even more obviously way way way above 10 bit per second.

This is a very complex function that require loads of processing. And can distinguish with microsecond precision it reaches each ear to determine direction.
The same is the case with vision, which although not at all the resolution we think it is, requires massive processing too to interpret into something meaningful.

Now the weird thing is, why in the world do they think consciousness which is even MORE complex, should operate at lower speed? That idea is outright moronic!!!

Edit:

Changed nanosecond to microsecond.

That doesn’t really matter, because 1 bit is merely distinguishing between 1 and zero, or some other 2 component value.
Just reading a single word, you understand the word between about 30000 words you know. That’s about 15 bits of information comprehended.
Don’t tell me you take more than 1.5 second to read and comprehend one word.

Without having it as text, free thought is CLEARLY much faster, and the complexity of abstract thinking would move the number way up.
1 thought is not 1 bit. But can be thousands of bits.

BTW the mind has insane levels of compression, for instance if you think bicycle, it’s a concept that covers many parts. You don’t have to think about every part, you know it has a handlebar, frame, pedals and wheels. You also know the purpose of it, the size, weight range of speed and many other more or less relevant details. Just thinking bicycle is easily way more than 10 bits worth of information. But they are “compressed” to only the relevant parts to the context.

Reading and understanding 1 word, is not just understanding a word, but also understanding a concept and putting it into context. I’m not sure how to quantize that, but to quantize it as 1 bit is so horrendously wrong I find it hard to understand how this can in any way be considered scientific.

Those people are probably lying. Try to count in your head from 1 to 100, and simultaneously count down from 100 to 1.
This is surprisingly hard despite the simplicity of the task. Of course I can’t know how it is for other people, but in my experience it is true that we can only “process” one conscious task at a time. I have tried to train myself to exceed this limitation, but frankly had to give up, I even suspect if you try to hard, you might risk going crazy.
We can however learn things so called “by heart”, in which case we don’t have to focus on them consciously, and do that at the same time as we focus on something else. Even things that can be pretty hard to learn, like driving a bicycle.

Bullshit. just reading this and comprehending it, which is thought, far exceeds 10 bits per second.
Speaking which is conveying thought, also far exceed 10 bits per second.

This piece is garbage.

Yes Chrysler is part of Stellantis, and once upon a time, way way back in what has since been called the 80’s, Chrysler was near bankrupt, but a savior came to Chrysler with the name Lee Iacocca. The mastermind behind Ford Mustang. And he came to Chrysler and saw all that was bad and fixed it. He undertook to finish a bold new type of car in the Dodge Caravan, which became hugely successful and saved Chrysler. Chrysler went on to become so successful they were even able to buy up other brands like AMC that also owned Jeep.

Ah well, as a European I know little about Chrysler today, but I have fond memories of once admiring mostly everything American, and Lee Iacocca and Jack Tramiel are probably the two business leaders I respect the most of all time.

Sorry to hear Chrysler is now considered safe to bet against. But sadly Stellantis has been shit for some years now.
Stellantis has many traditionally popular European brands, like Citroen, Peugeot, FIAT, Opel (Vauxhall in UK), Alpha Romeo and Lancia. And AFAIK all the brands are doing poorly.

Absolutely, AMD was able to make Ryzen on the brink of bankruptcy, I fully expected Intel to make a comeback, with all the resources at their disposal.
But instead it’s been a long string of failures and at most half successes since 2016.
I have a bit of AMD stock, but still I don’t really want to see Intel fail.

IDK if that’s meant as a joke, but I don’t see a single reason why she would do that. She is doing very well at AMD, and the pay is better at AMD.

I am pretty sure the plan wasn’t to quit at 63, at what looks like halfway through his plan.

Wow, so an unknown is better than Gelsinger!!

True, Stellantis has done extremely poorly the past couple of years IMO. They have several brands that usually feature in the top 10 most sold car models here (Denmark). But currently they have zero models even in top 20. Their EV cars are underwhelming generally offered with too small batteries, and are almost complete failures in the market. There have been some seriously wrong administrative decisions at the top.

Some of the same can possibly be said about Intel, except Intel was already in trouble when Gelsinger took over, and he is still working on the plan he set out to execute. Switching him out now looks really bad. Of course it may be they have to, disregarding how it looks.

With Stellantis it seems more the logical thing to do. Because Stellantis is bleeding, and losing market share fast.

Edit:
Huge difference with Stellantis is that they are quite open about the performance of the company has been poor, and that’s the reason he retires abruptly.

CEO Pat Gelsinger retired from the company after a distinguished 40-plus-year career and has stepped down from the board of directors, effective Dec. 1, 2024.

and

The board has formed a search committee and will work diligently and expeditiously to find a permanent successor to Gelsinger.

Wow, this is a really bad look for Intel. Gelsinger stepping down without Intel having a replacement! I always wonder when it doesn’t say why a CEO is stepping down suddenly without warning.

It’s notable that the announcement says nothing about Gelsinger having finished the part of the task he started on. It looks like they’ve lost confidence in Gelsinger (speculation). If that’s true, it also means they’ve probably lost confidence in the entire rescue plan he started on?

This is a huge bombshell, and not very elegantly executed IMO. Not just effective immediately, but effective YESTERDAY!?