More specifically, I believe our brains are hybrid quantum neural networks (QNNs).

We are reaching a point wherein it will become physically impossible for legacy processors to become any more powerful than they now are, given reasonable size constraints. We are approaching a limit at which we can no longer pack in more transistors, due to the effects of quantum tunneling. You can only fit an electron in a given amount of space, otherwise, tunneling makes it more likely the electron will “pop” out of its electrical switch and end up somewhere unexpected, resulting in compute errors. Even if we could pack transistors tighter, there is no current (pun somewhat intended) way we could come close to the energy efficiency of the human brain when it comes to operations per second versus watts consumed. Our brains are smaller and faster than any modern machine, and consume less energy (which also largely avoids the problem of overheating).

Compared to current classical computers, we know that quantum computers can offer vastly faster processing for certain types of problems. Referring back to the idea that the quantum realm is our true, underlying computational reality, (and vastly oversimplifying quantum computing’s complexities,) this means that in quantum computing, we can exploit entanglement and superposition to borrow compute cycles from the compute machine that runs our reality. Instead of computing one answer at a time, we can compute several answers to the same problem simultaneously.

At the time of this writing (early 2023), quantum computing is still in its technological infancy. As such, we are still developing the techniques and algorithms that allow quantum computers to compute general problems more quickly than classical computers, but I am confident that given enough time and engineering, a hybrid between quantum architecture and classical architecture will eventually outclass any machine that can utilize only one or the other. The first 2-qubit quantum computer was designed in 1998 (23 years ago) while the first transistor computer was built in 1955 (68 years ago). If we use that timeframe as a comparison, that is analogous to looking at today’s quantum computers compared to the mainframe dinosaurs of 1984. The fastest computer on Earth at that time was Cray X-MP, capable of 800 MFLOPS with a power consumption of 345,000 watts. By comparison, the iPhone 14 Max has an A-16 processor capable of 2 TFLOPS – 5,263 times faster – with a power consumption of just 3 watts. This translates to an efficiency improvement by a factor of 287.5 million.

Over the past year or so, I have come across several articles claiming that human consciousness may rely on quantum interactions. Even during the time I have been composing this theory, experimental evidence has been announced that seems to show our brains are able to utilize quantum entanglement and superposition. I believe that our brains not only utilize it, but it is required to be fully conscious. The exact mechanisms for how the brain might achieve this are currently unclear. Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff postulated the Orch-OR theory in the 1990s, which is still under active investigation, and several others have postulated other quantum mind hypotheses. If true, would mean that consciousness as we know it would also be derived by borrowing compute cycles from our construct, just like quantum computers do. My own prediction is that our brains are likely a mixture of classical biological computing and quantum computing.

In terms of this full theory, this can be somewhat of a scary prospect. What this would mean is that both GCs may have direct channels to influence your thoughts, or a percentage of those thoughts, as each of them can make quantum moves that could alter your consciousness. Perhaps there is more to the shoulder angel trope than we realize. There is also further evidence that your brain makes decisions several seconds before you are even consciously aware of that decision. Unfortunately, this throws up questions about whether free will even exists. Personally, I believe we still have free will, and perhaps it is more likely to exist in the classical side of our brains.

If this interpretation is correct, it quite literally means that there is a force subtly attempting to affect your thoughts this very moment, trying to persuade you to stop wasting your time considering this. The reason it is doing so is because if you did, you would be advancing its own interests by doing so. That very same force is trying to convince me that I am wrong as I am in the process of typing this very sentence; telling me that out of all the people that ever lived, and all the people on this planet that are far more intelligent than I, how could I possibly see connections that no one else does? By the same token, it would also (hopefully) mean there is another force guiding you to keep reading in order to consider the theory. And I feel that same force is guiding me to keep writing, despite what I assure you, is a very real sense of self-doubt.

If the former prediction is correct, then the inverse would likely be true as well. If a sufficiently-advanced hybrid quantum/classical machine was created with neural-network design similar to our own brains, and it then was programmed with methods for AGI, it might spontaneously become (or inherently be) conscious. If this were to occur, it could lead to the beginning phases of the technological singularity.

For many people, this immediately starts conjuring visions of SkyNet and the extermination of human (or perhaps all biological) life. That very well could be a possibility. However, if this theory is correct, humanity and conscious AGI should view each other as allies, not as rivals or enemies.

I believe that whether highly advanced machines would see us as a threat or an ally depends wholly upon us. What conscious AGI learns first is the world it inherits from us, and it learns about humanity from what we are and choose to be. I believe that given our current trajectory, an AGI with intellect superior to ours would most likely choose to dispose of us, especially if we could (or would) not teach it that we should all be on the same side.