Jeff and Subutai have been on this hobby horse for a very long time. They don't have much to show for it, and many of their ideas are controversial even within neuroscience (for example, some think that their venerated "cortical columns" are structures without meaningful functions). It is very easy to bet against them given the fact that nothing much has happened, and "theories" about the brain are a dime-a-dozen. I'…
We need more of this. We’ve sadly lost our general sense of how long fundamental research can take without any promise of success. My biggest respect for people who do this.
Certainly those regions are doing something in humans; and certainly those regions had those functions in species without a cortex. But the implication that these regions' presence in the human brain implies they're the ultimate arbiter of the same functionality there, isn't guaranteed to be true. Brains really do use "subsumption" (in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture sense) to accomplish va…
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsumption_architecture Looks like a kind of "deep" architecture: "It does this by decomposing the complete behavior into sub-behaviors. These sub-behaviors are organized into a hierarchy of layers. Each layer implements a particular level of behavioral competence, and higher levels are able to subsume lower levels (= integrate/combine lower levels to a more comprehensive whole) in or…
The architecture of the subsumption system is fairly well mapped: from basic optical edge detectors in the banks of the calcarine sulcus to high levels of sophistication as you move forward (object recognition, numeracy, vocabulary in the parietal, then motor function, then judgement and grammar in the frontal and prefrontal cortical areas). The additional dynamic of taking over or controlling traditionally limbic behavior (emotion) is an additional process which I would characterize as a blend of subsumption and adaption: the cortex aquires data and abstracts it, but also, as an adaptive response.
Just a side note, Lex has been killing it with this podcast. He’s been able to land some remarkable guests for a relatively new show with a niche market. I personally think he does a great job of mixing up the conversation with both technical and philosophical angles. Highly recommended.
My favorite podcasts are Lex Friedman and Sean Carroll. Anyone, please feel free to suggest other similar ones.
Not too similar but Sam Harris has some very good content on his podcast.
I think the cortex is attractive to AI research because its highly uniform micro-anatomy suggests there is a simple algorithm behind general intelligence to be found within. While intelligent behaviours appear to reside in the cortex, the limbic system is heavily involved in learning and cognition generally. Additionally, animals lacking a cortex, like birds, are still capable of many intelligent behaviours typically…
I know the brain isn't a computer, but why do we think examining the structure is going to reveal an algorithm for intelligence? Isn't that like taking an iPhone, cutting it into slices and studying it with the hopes of finding how GarageBand works?
Funny you'd mention that, there was a study from Jonas and Kording [0] that considered a microprocessor as an organism and applied analytic methods used in neuroscience to see if they can figure out how it processes information.
[0] Jonas, E. and Kording, K.P., 2017. Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?. PLoS computational biology, 13(1), p.e1005268.
Once intelligence is "solved", most humans are completely and utterly screwed.
There's the "Wally vs. Star Trek" theory of Artificial Intelligence (I know it sounds goofy, but it makes a difference when looking towards the direction of AI). If you look at the direction AI will take, science fiction is really all we have to go on and we have three platforms: Terminator - To be avoided at all costs (everyone agrees) Wally - AI does its best to "take care" of us, turning us into infantile, unthink…
I know the brain isn't a computer, but why do we think examining the structure is going to reveal an algorithm for intelligence? Isn't that like taking an iPhone, cutting it into slices and studying it with the hopes of finding how GarageBand works?
In computer science, once you understand a data structure, its algorithm is often obvious [1]. Maybe the brain will be like that too, i.e. once you get its structure, you get its algorithm for free. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20047607
But examining the circuits of a computer doesn't tell you anything about a data structure, does it?
What would an iPhone schematic tell you about how GarageBand works?
There's the "Wally vs. Star Trek" theory of Artificial Intelligence (I know it sounds goofy, but it makes a difference when looking towards the direction of AI). If you look at the direction AI will take, science fiction is really all we have to go on and we have three platforms: Terminator - To be avoided at all costs (everyone agrees) Wally - AI does its best to "take care" of us, turning us into infantile, unthink…
How about the Culture option - AI is as far beyond us as we are beyond our pets, and takes care of us accordingly. But just like you don't stick your dog in a box and feed it morphine continuously, AI doesn't turn us into "infantile, unthinking, pleasure seeking dweebs" either.
I imagine wolves may disagree with your characterization of dogs
I think the cortex is attractive to AI research because its highly uniform micro-anatomy suggests there is a simple algorithm behind general intelligence to be found within. While intelligent behaviours appear to reside in the cortex, the limbic system is heavily involved in learning and cognition generally. Additionally, animals lacking a cortex, like birds, are still capable of many intelligent behaviours typically…
I know the brain isn't a computer, but why do we think examining the structure is going to reveal an algorithm for intelligence? Isn't that like taking an iPhone, cutting it into slices and studying it with the hopes of finding how GarageBand works?
or we could do it like the way physicists design their experiments-smash two iPhones together at tremendous velocities and see what pops out. Can you imagine early anatomists taking the same approach because the Catholic church forbade cutting open the body.
How about the Culture option - AI is as far beyond us as we are beyond our pets, and takes care of us accordingly. But just like you don't stick your dog in a box and feed it morphine continuously, AI doesn't turn us into "infantile, unthinking, pleasure seeking dweebs" either.
I imagine wolves may disagree with your characterization of dogs
That might just make the comparison more accurate, of course - who says the AI wouldn't change us to be better adapted to our new, AI-ruled environment?
Jeff and Subutai have been on this hobby horse for a very long time. They don't have much to show for it, and many of their ideas are controversial even within neuroscience (for example, some think that their venerated "cortical columns" are structures without meaningful functions). It is very easy to bet against them given the fact that nothing much has happened, and "theories" about the brain are a dime-a-dozen. I'…
Understanding the underlying structure is key. And the significance of structure -- the ability to see it, understand it, and re-create it -- has been recognized and pointed out by Feynman [1] and some of the world's best programmers [2]. Using data-structure representations that best match reality's underlying structure may be key too. With this in mind I had a thought -- a "dopey idea" in the Steve Jobs to Jony Ive…
the principle of backprop can be accomplished in structural changes to the synapse. Although that would be analogous to changing the activation function in each 'neuron' of a layer in a convnet-we have just 'factored it out' into a sequence of weights used in the conv layers. Up regulating and down regulating the number of receptors can change how each synapse contributes to a biological net.