Original Writing

Original work I write a story about an American family, he has a very intelligent 12 year old child. In order to see who is smart we must accept intelligence tests. After waiting a few hours, the result was proved back to be definitive, so the boy was forced to remove his brain. Instead, he is seen as a threat to the future. Is it this or is it faced with imprisonment? "Well then tomorrow," cried the 12-year-old boy.

Disclaimer: I am not a neural network or machine learning expert. Since writing this article, many people with more expertise in these areas have said that they are evolutionary but not revolutionary. At least, I can say that I committed anthropomorphization with some text. We will not change the contents of this article. I think it makes sense to compare intuitive answers with subsequent comments by experts in that field. I strongly encourage readers to review comments after reading the article and get a clearer and wise opinion than me.

I am clarifying my position and writing this article to answer the criticism I most frequently mentioned. In a sense, I will repeat the same thing as I already said in the original article comment. There is a good report there. Indeed, one of the first motivations for writing this article was the difference between what I wrote in a mainstream article and a high-tech journalist. This is the reason why I added "(almost)" to the title. There are also some good reports on "Guardian" and "New York Times" (for example, quoting citations in this article), but these reports are still insufficient for problem solving, related to misleading articles doing.