I wonder how much more effecient will the computers with this have when they make them?

So the system is basically an oscillatory analog of a scale, which counts wins from one machine in cup A, and the other in cup B, and tips in the direction of more wins as more games are played. A multi-choice version of the system would simply extend the scale on further dimensions, like a top that can tip in any direction between 0 to 360 degrees.

It is simply rhetorics to say the system decides anything, because it is a physical inevitability to reach a certain state - within the probabilities of the wins. You could just as well conclude that a pile of sand in a hourglass "knows" what time it is.

Eikka is right, there is nothing intelligent about this system, not even among the designers.
However, the article is useful in that it is an clear example of fake science in what appears to be responsible news outlet. Shame on you Lisa Zyga, Phys.org and ScienceX!

Eikka, the dichotomy is far stranger. The information of the problem space correlates with the mechanistic instrument. From one perspective the question provides the information that constrains the light. From another there was only forever of fatalistic surreal branching. What is reported is a nonobjective quantitative model, from multiple minds, of their exchange.

Also some hourglasses have no grains of sand, but whose surfaces are hidden from every one. Do they tell time? No one seems to be able to look away, when there maybe no top. Just a drum whose hole and handles are too useful to be denied despite shape.

Where do you draw the line of organism with membrane and fluid? A body possesses correlates.
https://www.quant...0170119/
When efficiency is a proposition after condition and classical probability isn't the only lens.

Eikka, the dichotomy is far stranger. The information of the problem space correlates with the mechanistic instrument. From one perspective the question provides the information that constrains the light. From another there was only forever of fatalistic surreal branching. What is reported is a nonobjective quantitative model, from multiple minds, of their exchange.

Are you trying to pull off a new Sokal affair, or are you just playing with Markov Chains?