It’s also been pointed out that they are using ‘bit’ in a way people here are not thinking they are using it: https://lemmy.world/comment/14152865

Again, I would say using the “100%” in science when evaluating something is not a very good term to use. I think you know that.

“100% moronic” is an even bolder claim for someone who has not evaluated any of the claims in the paper.

One might even say that calling scientific claims “100%” false is a not especially scientific approach.

Without evaluating the data or methodology, I would say that the chance you gave it was not a fair one. Especially since you decided to label it “moronic.” That’s quite a claim.

Thank you! I’ll add these to the body.

Edit: Never mind, it doesn’t seem to want to let me save. Oh well.

Edit 2: Weird, it did when I tried it again, so thanks!

As I suggested to someone else, without any of us actually reading the paper, and I know I do not have the requisite knowledge to understand it if I did, dismissing it with words like “moronic” is not warranted. And as I also suggested, I don’t think such a word can generally be applied to Caltech studies. They have a pretty solid reputation as far as I know.

You are confusing input with throughput. They agree that the input is much greater. It’s the throughput that is so slow. Here’s the abstract:

This article is about the neural conundrum behind the slowness of human behavior. The information throughput of a human being is about 10 bits/s. In comparison, our sensory systems gather data at ∼1⁢0⁹ bits/s. The stark contrast between these numbers remains unexplained and touches on fundamental aspects of brain function: what neural substrate sets this speed limit on the pace of our existence? Why does the brain need billions of neurons to process 10 bits/s? Why can we only think about one thing at a time? The brain seems to operate in two distinct modes: the “outer” brain handles fast high-dimensional sensory and motor signals, whereas the “inner” brain processes the reduced few bits needed to control behavior. Plausible explanations exist for the large neuron numbers in the outer brain, but not for the inner brain, and we propose new research directions to remedy this.

They would be incorrect, as this neuroscientist explains: https://drsarahmckay.com/the-myth-of-multi-tasking/

How are you measuring it?

See now, I would prefer AI in my toaster.

You really wouldn’t.

And the other two paragraphs said…?

And him loving the Unabomber sure gives me some incel vibes.

But in terms of actual information it could be worse thanks to AI hallucinations and poor training materials.

The second threat is the rise of “answer engines” like Perplexity which, well, do what they say on the tin. OpenAI has added internet search to ChatGPT, Meta Platforms is exploring building its own search engine, and even AI chatbots that can’t search the internet are proving increasingly capable at addressing many questions. They’re also becoming ever more widespread, as Microsoft and Appleintegrate them directly into the operating systems of all the devices they make or support.

That is not an improvement, it’s just also not really any worse.

Considering kids have been groomed on Roblox, I wouldn’t be shocked if kids were being primed for believing in nonsense conspiracies there either.