[deleted]
Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
11–20 of 141 posts
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#12philosophers caution when comparing an analogy to a thing
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#13Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#14Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#15This is a very old article by Francis Crick which essentially says the same:
https://www.nature.com/articles/337129a0
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes wonder how much further along these initiatives might be if the economy was focused on them instead of My Pillow sales, cheap crap from Walmart, and simply handing personally wealthy elites stacks of cash to create pointless jobs and the money was put into net new technology, not Twitter 2.0 and VR 4.0
Move to China or North Korea I guess? Still seems to have problems with graft though.
Ah the exceptional minds of the US. “If it smells like a violation of politically correct tradition as I know it, it’s communism!”
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent didn't suggest cutting off food, housing, or other essentials.
Technically, everyone in Soviet Russia had food and housing.
Technically the US has more people in prison than China, and QOL metrics have all been dropping for decades.
Crack epidemic. Prescription drug epidemic. RvW being gutted.
Let’s sit and fear becoming a nation state that collapsed 30 years ago while ignoring we’re already on the path.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#18this article makes me sad ... a neural network can be also a network of biological neurons, the author means artificial neural network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network the Wikipedia article even goes into the differences, so why did we need a study for that? A study urges caution comparing Jellyfish to Jelley ... tasters found they are not the same (even though I hear that fried jellyfish taste nice...)…
the motivation is also in the article, because the original research that suggested similarities in activity only achieved this by doing it under conditions that are implausible in biological systems, therefore that original research likely was misleading.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#19Andrej Karpathy was recently on Lex Fridman's podcast and covered this to some extent. He has the same perspective on this topic and expanded on it quite a bit. Great listen overall IMHO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdiD-9MMpb0
I like his idea of finding 0-days in physics. :)
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#20This is a very old article by Francis Crick which essentially says the same: https://www.nature.com/articles/337129a0
As someone who studied Neuroscience in college, I remember this paper and some other examples showing just how different computational neural networks are from real neurons. It's difficult for me to believe that professional researchers could really believe a NN is an accurate model of the real deal.
The paper also does not have any reference to a study or paper that explicitly states that a neural network is a good model for grid cells. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) So I am left wondering why this direction was chosen.
Maybe it's a little cynical, but this topic seems to have been chosen (at least in part) to produce a splashy headline. Or in other words, to give the Stanford and MIT PR engine something to print.
This is the sort of obvious thing we all knew to be true. Why people with access to lab animals and a fully stocked microbiology lab needed to prove it (again) I do not understand.