Live data from Hacker News

Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

news.mit.edu

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#31
post #28

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.

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

#32
post #28

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.

Eh, we might go there, but I don't think the core algorithm that's running in our heads has much to do with quantum-level.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#33
To 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.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#34
Any true understanding or new insight originates in the plexus solaris which is near your heart, then somewhat slowly works it way up to the spine. The brain is a somewhat predictable fleshy motor capable of turning the insight into language, storing it in memory, or acting on it. Most of the times we "get by" with the stored procedures in the brain but don't imagine it's the place where original understanding is generated. Funny how the ancient Egyptians understood this but we don't. Of course this is also why all attempts to create AI by simulating what happens in the brain are doomed to hilarious failure.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#35

Earlier 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.

So all these US businesses do zero planning? The Fed is raising rates for lulz? We’ve unintentionally allowed consolidation of ownership? No one has any clue? You’re nitpicking semantics.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#36
post #28

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.

Funny you should mention that! https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-compute...

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#37
post #31
post #28

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.

But why is the next step quantum? And why is this the final step?

Because we don't understand quantum physics, and we don't understand the brain. I don't think we know if it's the final step. There could be wizard jelly or something at the bottom.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#38
The aspect of ai that makes me think something related is going on, is how artifacts look in image generation systems like stable diffusion.

Often 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

#39
post #28

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.

Look up 'Penrose argument'. Personally tho I believe it's the physicists' equivalent of seeing everything as a nail when using a hammer.

Re: Study urges caution when comparing neural networks to the brain

#40

To 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.

Optical illusions is one thing, but, I don't know, "Predictably Irrational", "Thinking fast and slow" or just whatever is happening all around.

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.

Post reply on HN