Here's my guess: neurons tap into quantum mechanics but we are too primitive to understand that for now. The brain was initially modeled as humors/fluids back when we developed aqueducts, then telegraph came into the scene and it was modeled as electrical impulses and now computers/ML are popular therefore we see it as a neural network. Next step is quantum.
Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
31–40 of 141 posts
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#32Here's my guess: neurons tap into quantum mechanics but we are too primitive to understand that for now. The brain was initially modeled as humors/fluids back when we developed aqueducts, then telegraph came into the scene and it was modeled as electrical impulses and now computers/ML are popular therefore we see it as a neural network. Next step is quantum.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#33Human brains can be tricked too, but never this way and never beyond our capacities for rational thought.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#34Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah the exceptional minds of the US. “If it smells like a violation of politically correct tradition as I know it, it’s communism!”
Not American, but you asked for planned economy: those are it.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#36Here's my guess: neurons tap into quantum mechanics but we are too primitive to understand that for now. The brain was initially modeled as humors/fluids back when we developed aqueducts, then telegraph came into the scene and it was modeled as electrical impulses and now computers/ML are popular therefore we see it as a neural network. Next step is quantum.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#37Here's my guess: neurons tap into quantum mechanics but we are too primitive to understand that for now. The brain was initially modeled as humors/fluids back when we developed aqueducts, then telegraph came into the scene and it was modeled as electrical impulses and now computers/ML are popular therefore we see it as a neural network. Next step is quantum.
But why is the next step quantum? And why is this the final step?
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#38Often these systems will have really bizzare artificats, people with 3 arms, etc. However at the same time when you glance at the output without looking carefully you will sometimes miss these artifacts even though they should be absolutely glaring.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#39Here's my guess: neurons tap into quantum mechanics but we are too primitive to understand that for now. The brain was initially modeled as humors/fluids back when we developed aqueducts, then telegraph came into the scene and it was modeled as electrical impulses and now computers/ML are popular therefore we see it as a neural network. Next step is quantum.
Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain
#40To me one important aspect is the existence of adversarially attacks on neural networks. They essentially prove that the neural network never "understood" its data. It hasn't found some general categories which correspond somewhat to human categories. Human brains can be tricked too, but never this way and never beyond our capacities for rational thought.
We do not understand our data.
In general yes, I believe most people will only accept thinking machine when it can reproduce all our pitfalls. Because if we see something and the computer doesn't, then it clearly still needs to be improved, even if it's an optical illusion.
But our bugs aren't sacred and special. They just passed Darwin's QA some thousands years ago.