I don't think I'm that intelligent. Really.
Actually, if you haven't understood the statements above, then it's my fault, not yours.
What you have said is true, except that there is no distinction between "computers" and "internet", it's the same. The interpretation of the informations on this internet is that is distinct from the computers.
About the text above (>>11303
), I probably haven't explained properly.
Let's come back and do an analysis of your OP. You said:
>access to all of the information conceived by the human species.
That is not true, because we can access on computers only the information we produced, not the information we thought. Inside our heads there's much more information, that we can't express because these informations are not capable of being expressed with normal language (scripted or phonetic). That's why we have art, but even with art, complex thoughts can't be expressed because they are more of an experience through senses.
>performing highly complicated mathematical calculations
It does, but we should not just assume that mathematics is the "truth language". This is silly. Mathematics is a language used to express classical logic. So we should question if this classical logic is correct. If you go down the "rabbit hole", you'll notice that the foundations of science is not as solid as people think.
So, on my first comment I was just criticising your argument about "access to all of the information", basically.
About your AI idea, it seems cool, but that will take a huge effort and our understanding about human thoughts is not entire predictable, since we have no predictable model of the mind yet, and without all the variables you can't calculate.
You can use behaviorism to predict behaviour, but not thoughts. You can evaluate all the basic information income to a subject, but you can't predict (for sure) the resulting thoughts. That's because humans think differently, since they have different stimuli while child and genetics...
>how does one acquire such knowledge?
As I said, I don't think I'm intelligent, really, but I would suggest you look at the problems in a "meta" vision.
It's not about how much you read, but how you correlate informations. As you've said, books are worthless in today's world. Most books are produced to fullfil a number of pages needed, not to pass the knowledge in a very efficient way.
I would suggest learning from many different online sources and just get the books as a reference when needed.
For philosophy, the plato.stanford.edu is very good.
I think OP was refering to "hackers" in the sense of "invasion of computers through network", as we know today. He probably was not writing about Turing and Zuze, and the WW2 cryptoanalysis.