Re: The Joy of *small* business

On 12/24/24 9:28 AM, D wrote:

  On Tue, 24 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
 

Ahh... but let's wait and see...
>
"The findings, posted on the preprint server arXiv but not yet published in a
peer-reviewed journal, have attracted both global attention and skepticism".

>
 Oh, I agree there ... but one of the main points was
 that the instrumentation/methods were much improved
 yet STILL showed the mysterious effect (just in better
 detail).
>
 So, downstream, I expect this is gonna be deemed REAL.
>
 And it's REALLY weird.
>
 Seems like every time instrumentation improves by even
 2X then The Science has to leap ahead 10X.

 This is the truth! It almost feels like Moores law kind of. The further we go,
the more time and money needs to be invested to reach the next level.
 I wonder how many paradigm shifts and quantum leaps remain to be exploited? I'd
like to have anti-gravity!! And in computing, I'd like to see a shift to a new
paradigm during my time left on the planet.

   I have doubts on 'anti-gravity'. It'd require 'un-bending'
   spacetime. If it doesn't require as much energy to unbend
   then 'perpetual motion' machines become possible.
   As for paradigms ... we're still kinda using Babbage's
   machine - nice orderly distinct steps at a time. Going
   parallel, well, it's just multiple Babbage approaches
   stapled together. 'Quantum', if they can ever deal
   with the error issues, may be a glimpse at that
   'next paradigm'.

 Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
 the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.

>
What is IQ? What is intelligence? We are fumbling around in the dark. Is a human
+ a computer a 200 IQ person? Stanislaw Lem writes in one of his books about
knowledge factories. It was a long time I read it, but it kind of gave me the
impression he is thinking about AI-farms churning out theories and science.

>
 Beyond a certain point nobody is SURE what "IQ" means.
 It's kind of the problem where you're trying to describe
 yourself - but the very attempt at description ALTERS
 the equation. Very quantum  :-)

 Yes.
 

 I've met a few people with EXTREME 'IQ' over the years.
 One seemed kinda 'normal', but just had kinda superhuman
 math abilities/perspective. The other two were, well,
 NOT so 'normal' - skittish, borderline autistic,
 'borderline' in general.
>
 But we're still talking IQ-200 max here. What the hell
 would 300 or 500 look like ??? Note effective intellectual
 ability is not proportional to the IQ score. 120 is MUCH
 more capable than 100.

 I imagine that our IQ scales (as bad as they might be) start to break down
beyond a certain level.

   The practical limit for "IQ" measurement is
   around 200 - and even that's getting up into
   error territory. "IQ" is ok for maybe 70 to
   140. That fits for MOST people.