My point about reading already maxing out our understanding bandwidth is more precisely this: our visual system has enormous data bandwidth, that far surpasses the rate at which we can make sense of that data.https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1042493581707993088 …
A neural interface does not achieve any improvement towards the above over what we have, what we need is a smarter *application*.
-
-
Without neural interface (or similarly advanced optical interface) there is no way for any application to perform rich realtime pre processing
-
No computer has access to all your sensory input, nor do most people carry around hard keyboards capable of delivering 300 apm
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A smarter application would need to be able to present knowledge at a higher level of abstraction that was specifically matched to the way that your memory has compressed and abstracted all of your previous experiences, then you would simply know more as if you already knew it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If there is no benefit in having info-processing modules embedded in the neural substrate, then why do people learn languages, when there's Google translate. Or why do people memorize anything, when there are computers?
-
Why even open your eyes when a computer can now read to you what's in front of you?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.