387
Superficial Intelligence
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
387 points (94.3% liked)
memes
23024 readers
3027 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Only if you use Qubits in those calculations, assumably. It's theorized that neurons are affected by quantum interactions, which would makes sense at least to me (who didn't study quantum mechanics, lol).
It's hardly comparable to the fancy one-shot simulations we call AI right now.
It would still be matrices. Just matrices that include quantum effects.
I don't think ion channels are small enough for quantum interactions to be significant. Do you have any source for quantum interactions in neurons?
I think you're right, but people love shoehorning quantum effects in anything they can. Decoherence is likely too fast in these systems to be meaningful: they're relatively enormous