Looks very much like the TeslaBot.

So far, only a render and a mission statement. I hope they succeed but it's not like they provided anything yet. Everyone agrees that a humanoid robot would be cool, the question is whether one can actually build one.

She survived.

Oh, totally! I love it! :D

What are you? Long lost brother? Archnemesis?

Some

Fyi, the last "A" in "GABA" already means "acid" so "GABA acid" would be redundant. :)

Yeah but that's just not the case. You aren't the world's best surgeon if you can accurately tell me what most sources on the internet say about procedure x on average. That might help speed up education a bit in the best case...and maybe not even that. Google finds you that Information basically as quickly as putting it into something like ChatGPT.

Regardless, that's not even what this AI is about. It's about accurate translation, which again is something completely different.

It seems to me that one of the biggest challenges is taking real-world data, representing as a model and only then working with it. Such as automated driving, for example. Being perfect at that would give me far more confidence that AI could be disruptive in more areas very soon.

Also AI being capable of reliably fixing and improving other AI at an increasing speed.

I fundamentally disagree that AI being capable of translating at human level is an adequate marker for the singularity.

I would've loved to see the actual percentages on the regions, where possible. Interesting map though, thanks.

Despite the efforts of Russia to change that.

Starve minorities or foreigners, then export ethnic russians into those territories. There you go, Mother Russia just expanded. Sort of what they're doing in eastern Ukraine - but there they're rather directly killing and kidnapping.

Look up "Holodomor" for a fun read.

Quite good! In the last example though, I think you should make the big picture a downward trend. So add a few smaller bars to the right of the cherrypicked ones, etc.

This product, the "Science Eye" is only intended to cure very specific cases of blindness. The photoreceptors must be ruined but the ganglial cell, the optic nerve and the entire optical tract to the cortex must be intact.

This is basically just a small display inserted into the eye. It won't read any data from the brain, it won't influence hearing, thoughts, movement, smell, etc. This can't enable Ready Player One. It's a cure for some forms of blindness.

Neuralink, if it worked as intended, might enable full dive VR like in Ready Player One. That's not to say it will work as intended. Just that these are very different products.

A little comparison of the BCIs that are mentioned in the comments:

This product (Science Eye) intends to cure very specific cases of blindness, nothing more.

Synchron seems to mostly aim for letting people control muscles. It has the benefit of remaining in the vasculature but it couldn't get as close to the cortex as neuralink could, therefore it couldn't read/write from individual neurons, only groups of them. Enough to move large muscles, not enough to hear/see/etc., I'd estimate.

Neuralink wants a direct interface with the cortex. To read/write hearing/vision/movement with very high resolution. However it's much more invasive than both of the former and has a higher potential of surgical complications and scarring.

So assuming they will work as intended:
Science Eye: Cures some cases of blindness, low invasiveness.
Synchron: Cures some cases of paralysis, medium invasiveness.
Neuralink: Cures blindness, paralysis, deafness, enables full-dive VR, transmission of thoughts, etc. Very invasive.

This product (Science Eye) intends to cure very specific cases of blindness, nothing more.

Synchron seems to mostly aim for letting people control muscles. It has the benefit of remaining in the vasculature but it couldn't get as close to the cortex as neuralink could, therefore it couldn't read/write from individual neurons, only groups of them. Enough to move large muscles, not enough to hear/see/etc., I'd estimate.

Neuralink wants a direct interface with the cortex. To read/write hearing/vision/movement with very high resolution. However it's much more invasive than both of the former and has a higher potential of surgical complications and scarring.

So assuming they will work as intended:

Science Eye: Cures some cases of blindness, low invasiveness.

Synchron: Cures some cases of paralysis, medium invasiveness.

Neuralink: Cures blindness, paralysis, deafness, enables full-dive VR, transmission of thoughts, etc. Very invasive.

Well, some malfunctions could kill you.

As far as I'm aware most monkeys survived and those that didn't died of surgical complications, not the device malfunctioning. But feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

This is literally only intended to let a specific subset of blind people see again. Nothing else.

No, they're building a completely different device for a narrow range of causes for blindness. Cool if it lets some blind people see but that's all it can do.

No, put a tiny screen in your eye. Reading articles has gone out of fashion?

Against some specific cases of blindness. If your optical nerve or even the ganglial cells in the retina are damaged, this can't do anything.

This seems to be a specific solution to cure some specific cases of blindness. Nothing more.

It's awesome if it works but it's not a product with the same intentions as neuralink. Neuralink intends to have a read/write-capability for large parts of the cortex, thereby influencing hearing, vision, speech, movement, etc. This can't do that.

Well, it seems this rival company will only be able to transmit optical information and only in patients with destroyed photoreceptors but an intact optical nerve.

Neuralink could theoretically stimulate/read any accessible part of the cortex, thereby influencing hearing, vision, movement, speech, etc. That doesn't seem possible with this proposed device.

Neuralink wouldn't "force" patients to drill holes in their skull either. They'll offer a treatment which entails it. That isn't force.

"[...] 90% of virtual assistants are initially programmed with a binary female gender. This matches the negative stereotype of women as compliant and available to serve."

Well...sure but it also matches the positive stereotype of women being nicer and more likable. Also maybe more trustworthy and reliable.

We can just make up reasons but those are just unfounded allegations.

Personally, I find female voices to sound nicer and more friendly. That would be my reason, as far as I'm aware.

A large part of this is the same reason why people are so disillusioned by fusion power: reading non-scientific articles.

Listen to actual experts in the field, ideally as many as possible. Journalists tend to not have the dahinter idea ejat they're talking about - and they exagerrate on top of that.

Besides that, predicting future progress is inherently difficult and inaccurate.