/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5191611
I think you just described The Matrix.

Eventually such technology would need to be made, but maybe not for humans. I believe it's estimated that by 2050, the average computer will be "smarter" than the entire human race. Instead of pumping knowledge into our own brains, why not pump everything into supercomputers?

Computers are already faster than the human brain, and eventually they will be able to hold more information. The only limitation is the ability of free thought.

>>5191649
It's estimated that if we continue developing processing power at this (exponential) rate we will have the first computer that's smarter than a human by 2025. Source: Kurzweil and no I don't believe everything he says but his processing power graphs are just solid science.

>>5191656
The exponential increase in processing power isn't sustainable; in fact, it could start to tail off at the end of 2013. Then again, some scientists think we have six centuries of exponential increase, so who fucking knows.

Btw, it also simultaneously gets exponentially more expensive to produce more powerful processors.

>>5191656

Processing power and memory are apples to oranges when comparing computers to the human brain. A supercomputer already has more "processing power" than a human, but it isn't more intelligent.

>>5191649
>average computer will be "smarter" than the entire human race
>assuming I'm not a cyborg

>>5191662
>simultaneously gets exponentially more expensive to produce more powerful processors
I thought that processors we becoming exponentially cheaper?

>>5191671
The cost and operating costs of the machines that build them aren't.

The quest for social justice is interfering with this.

First of all, people refuse to accept that there are different levels of intelligence. As a result class length and speed are adjusted to low levels of ability and people who are the most capable are bored to tears learning in years what they could in months or even weeks.

Second, education should be privatized but the government wants control over what we learn. The public education system is used as a platform to brainwash people with naive liberalism. Public education has no economic incentive to streamline the education process.

>>5191680
First point: 100% true.
Second point: completely retarded.

You pass the Turing test, however.

>Why has no one invested in certain technologies that are able to pump the necessary information into our brains.
What a stupid question. Of course there are investments in neurology, it's just at a research level for now.
But yeah, if it ever happened, it would be a huge gain in productivity, comparable to the invention of glasses (glasses allowed scientists and craftsmen to work after the age of 40, "brain dump" would allow engineer and scientist to start working at 18 or sooner).

>>5191671
One production line is more expensive, we just make more chips per line.
Yes it's not completely sustainable, because you can start putting chips in every household objects, but at some point you will saturate the market.

On the science side, it's another matter. I'm doing my best.

>>5191611

but you also have to agree, that the global IQ and intellect are steadily going up too. I blame the scholastic system for the problems you perceive. we could start college at age 10 if the early, easy grades were a little more rigorous. there's so much wasted time, mostly because of an outdated teaching model, namely the US model, that gets adopted all across the world. we might eventually be able to engineer ourselves to be able to soak up information at a rate you describe, but I doubt it will happen to us, because we already exist.

>>5191686
The reason it's not sustainable is because once you get the transistors under a certain size, quantum tunnelling becomes a concern. Part of me feels that scientists will still be able to work around it though.

you will not see anything like this in your lifetime.

It also wouldn't do much of a difference. It would increase productivity by some percentage and that's it.

>>5191680
>First of all, people refuse to accept that there are different levels of intelligence. As a result class length and speed are adjusted to low levels of ability and people who are the most capable are bored to tears learning in years what they could in months or even weeks.

>class length and speed are adjusted to low levels of ability and people who are the most capable are bored to tears learning in years what they could in months or even weeks.
is true only because
>people refuse to accept that there are different levels of intelligence.
is not.

Teachers, and our system as a whole, perfectly well recognizes that some kids are better learners than others. It's not their job to cater to those ones, though.

>>5191683
Why is it retarded, have you not heard all the ridiculous crap they teach you in public education? Obama vetoed a voucher system that would've given people money to send their kids to private school claiming that it would weaken the public school system.

(That was the whole point, the voucher system was just a step to privatizing the whole thing which would create chaos if done all at once)

>>5191699
It's their job to teach everyone at their own level. I said people refuse it, not the teachers. Teachers know it is true because they see the results, but usually keep their mouth shut about it.

If people accepted the differences, they would just create different tiers of classes for different intelligence kids. Then all the ethnic subgroup inner city black people would riot when their kids were mostly in the slow classes.

>>5191703
Why should education be privatised? Why is "liberalism"* naive? And I'm not American so I don't know about your education system.

Education doesn't need to be privatised, it needs to be completely rethought. What should happen, is politicians, lawyers, business people and the like should fuck off. The only people society needs is intellectuals and workers.

* Americans almost invariably use the term incorrectly (that's been my experience on 4chan anyway).

>>5191691
>Part of me feels that scientists will still be able to work around it though.
That's what I meant by "I'm doing my best."

>>5191712
>Why is "liberalism"* naive?
>What should happen, is politicians, lawyers, business people and the like should fuck off. The only people society needs is intellectuals and workers.
You answered your own question.

>>5191693
>I doubt it will happen to us, because we already exist
What does existence prove other than existence?

>>5191712
If you check, both spellings are valid. There are 2 general problems with liberalism as it is practiced. First, many liberals are group-thinking tribalists, as in they get angry at people who disagree with the ideas their group thinks are correct instead of openly confronting those opposing ideas. This idiotic hypocrisy and contradicts the whole concept of "liberal".

But the real problem is that they usually don't think through the things that they ask for. They demand things that superficially seem moral without even analyzing it first to see what the effects might be. Usually when you try to change something for the better you make it worse, and only careful analysis can help avoid this.

Privatization is good because people trying to make money would come up with the most efficient methods of education so they could get more customers.

The government trying to do the same is a joke, the affirmative action hired person in the position of power to do something because of strict seniority wouldn't know what to do or who to ask about what to do even if they had an incentive to do so.

>>5191738
>affirmative action hired person
>"The black guy"
>Racist on 4chan

>>5191738
That reasoning is borderline retarded and you should feel bad for thinking that way.
Corporate structure and efficiency is about cutting corners and spending the least amount of money to make the most expensive product.

How does cutting corners in any way equate to a good education?
You can't have this book because it costs too much, we won't run these experiments because we have to pay for them.

Granted affirmative action is fucking stupid, but you're just as bad as liberals

>>5191738
straw man general

>>5191846
No one is going to go to a school that doesn't provide results. Testing would be a separate industry paid for by employers who wanted specific attributes and thus schools would be judged by their ability to prepare students for those tests.

Corporations only cut corners that don't matter or nobody notices (which means they don't matter), that doesn't even apply to this.

The price is driven by the market.

>>5191885
Schools are judged by that now, kids don't learn jack shit other than what's required for an exam.
That isn't learning, that's memorizing, and it doesn't produce intellectually capable adults who can think on their feet and apply gained knowledge to solving new problems, they can only resolve old problems.

They certainly do cut corners that matter.
Hell, in my lab just a few weeks ago I was using a new resin set up to purify some plasmids. It came with a little resin filter to put on a syringe, piece of shit broke because they were too cheap to use a quality polymer to hold the resin and I lost my sample, the resin itself is upwards of $250 for 50ml, if everything weren't about profit margins they might've spent, I don't know $40 more on a sturdy plastic cover.
Corporate-style success isn't focused on being the best, it's focuses on doing the least you can do and being perceived as the best.

>>5191885
>Corporations only cut corners that don't matter or nobody notices (which means they don't matter), that doesn't even apply to this.
>Privatization is good because people trying to make money would come up with the most efficient methods of education so they could get more customers.

Blatantly false. It's like I'm on /pol/ where everyone professes the highest regard for Chicago economics but nobody seems to have actually studied it. In instances where the product being provided has a positive public impact that is not compensated for, you get an externality that causes the market to underproduce. Private schools would only ever meet the market demand for education, but not the social demand (a difference that matter when you're competing in a global marketplace). In these instances, it is more efficient for the service to be provided by the government. This bullshit about liberal brainwashing is unsupported conspiracy theory nonsense.

>>5191885
99% of people who go to religious schools pick schools that don't provide results. The same applies to people who could easily move to a different district to get their kids into a better school but don't.

>>5191738
>liberals are asshats
doesn't even know what liberal means.

>careful analysis
compare the average level of education in your shitty country to the average level in any social democracy with free education.

>privatization is good
in education? jesus fuck. what am i reading? how can you seriously mean this?