I think the neuroscience here has really gone through the pop-sci wringer. The original research was specifically about impulse control and not anything else. I think there has been some more evidence about pattern recognition etc recently.
It's always struck me as funny when people say 25 is when you're fully mature. After this point, you start to experience declines in ability. It's not maturity; it's the moment you start dying.
While you make a good point that the mid-twenties maturity is in terms of impulse control, that's kind of a defining trait for getting a scheme like this to effectively work.
Beware of unquantifiable words like "matures". It might just mean minor ongoing changes. Or it might even mean deterioration. In the end, performance is what matters, not morphology.
They have definitely contributed a lot to advancing machine learning. I believe the above comment means we don't know whether advancing AI will have sour consequences for society down the line
I mean maybe, but it’s already having positive effects today. It’s advanced the state of the art for cancer diagnostics and is advancing novel treatments, for example.
So far, the arguments against that I’ve seen have been hypotheticals and boogeymen.
