Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

canada.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#31

Post by jacalulu »

mvleming wrote: post #20
jacalulu wrote: post #2

I find AI absolutely fascinating. I was having coffee earlier this week with someone working on this and he was telling me that although they have managed to accomplish this, there are still parts of what Spaun can accomplish that they can't quite explain.

Can you elaborate on the parts of what Spaun can accomplish that they can't quite explain? I'm very interested in this.

He was talking about how current models of the brain, such as the one by IBM (http://www.kurzweilai.net/ibm-simulates-530-billon-neurons-1...) which has over 5 billion neurons, might be larger than Spaun, but none have demonstrated any of the AI that Spaun has. In particular, it's ability to solve basic problems, similar to that of a toddler. He didn't mention a problem in particular, simply that some of the things Spaun was able to solve, they weren't entirely sure how to explain it - but they were sure that they could reproduce. Which to me echos the fact that the brain is a very complex thing that we are still very far away from understanding.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#32

Post by pdog »

ilaksh wrote: post #27

After reading halfway through Kurzweil's new book How to Create a Mind and getting all of the detailed explanations of hierarchical hidden Markov models and why they are better than neural nets, I am surprised to see so much news about neural nets. How do Spaun's neural nets compare with the type of HHMMs in Kurzweil's book (in terms of capability)?

I'd put Kurzweil's book down and pick up some more recent research. As the biologist P.Z. Myers once wrote, “Ray Kurzweil is a genius. One of the greatest hucksters of the age.” The full New Yorker article, Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind[1], makes me question how relevant he is today.

[1] - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurz...

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#34

Post by ilaksh »

pdog wrote: post #32
ilaksh wrote: post #27

After reading halfway through Kurzweil's new book How to Create a Mind and getting all of the detailed explanations of hierarchical hidden Markov models and why they are better than neural nets, I am surprised to see so much news about neural nets. How do Spaun's neural nets compare with the type of HHMMs in Kurzweil's book (in terms of capability)?

I'd put Kurzweil's book down and pick up some more recent research. As the biologist P.Z. Myers once wrote, “Ray Kurzweil is a genius. One of the greatest hucksters of the age.” The full New Yorker article, Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind [1], makes me question how relevant he is today. [1] - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurz...

I think that psychologist who didn't like the book didn't really understand the book. I also don't think that P.Z. Meyers ever understood much of what Kurzweil was talking about either.

My guess is that maybe some of the more biologically accurate spiking neural network simulations are more capable than the more typical neural nets that Kurzweil dismisses, but also less efficient than hierarchical hidden Markov models.

When I Google hierarchical hidden Markov models I see it being used in quite a lot of current research. I also see neural nets being mentioned, sometimes in the same project.

What research would you recommend?

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#35

Post by randomdata »

jostmey wrote: post #4

I highly doubt we know enough about the Brain to begin running realistic simulations of one. I am not even sure if scientist/mathematicians have identified a rigorous, mathematical definition of exactly what is intelligence. And yet we feel like we can correctly simulate a miniaturized version of Brain?

Based on the process outlined in the article, it is akin to taking an existing electronics product and then duplicating it. You don't really need to understand Ohms law or how transistors work in order to produce something that works like the original.

The article claims that the simulation behaves in many ways like a real brain, so even if they made some mistakes along the way, it is still incredibly fascinating.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#36

Post by ekianjo »

rm999 wrote: post #26
ekianjo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you do not need to understand the low level of physics (quantum physics) to make very accurate predictions about ballistics with traditional, high level physics rules. You could as well understand the overall principles of the brain and have a high level model for it instead of trying to understand its smallest parts. This approach is also very valid, it all depends on what your expectations are.

But we don't understand the high-level 'physical rules' of the brain. While gravity could be explained by simple equations, the high-level operation of the brain has escaped us despite a lot of effort. This goes back to the top-down vs bottom-up debate in studying the brain. What you are discussing is a top-down approach, where we understand what the brain does and then figure out how it works from there. A lot of pe…

Sorry, but gravity is not "explained" by any equation. It is merely observed and described. Currently there is no clear explanation as what is causing gravity to exist. So, we do not "understand" gravity better than the brain, in a sense. It is still a mystery.

I am not saying we should treat the brain as a black box and not try to understand its inner workings, but as another commenter mentioned, it is about finding the RIGHT level to understand its workings.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#37

Post by seiji »

georgeorwell wrote: post #30
seiji wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pattern recognition, answering to questions, understanding language, speech, and thinking up solutions to problems would all be better served by a quantum computer than by anything else these guys can make. Math or it didn't happen. Speculation without hard facts to back it up is poppycock gobbledygook.

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support his claim, assuming that if we do have quantum minds that they cannot be simulated by non-quantum computers. Roger Penrose is certainly well-respected. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly).

It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the universe itself!" but it's so blatantly wrong. It's just one step away from saying consciousness is "mystical" or created by philotic twining.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#38

Post by sneak »

lutze wrote: post #28
rck wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that a lot of the most useful AIs won't (or don't) need to think like humans, but one large class of AIs that will at least need that capability are the ones that have to interact with people in social settings. I'd be surprised if that didn't become common. As for simulating emotion, there's a bit of evidence that such abilities may have therapeutic applications: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/robots-chil…

Ah, but that's not simulating emotion, it's simulating the appearance of emotion. Big difference! If we were going that route, I'd rather an AI actually feel empathy, rather than just being able to look like they do... Because faking it is pretty much textbook psycho! Edit: Just to clarify, when I say AI, I'm referring to strong AI, not anything that we have now (or are even close to getting).

> , but that's not simulating emotion, it's simulating the appearance of emotion. Big difference!

Is there, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#39

Post by tubbo »

georgeorwell wrote: post #3

Here's the paper in Science for anyone with an account: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1202.abstract?si... I couldn't find a pdf that wasn't behind a paywall. Also, there are different details at popsci.com: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/meet-spaun-fir... As for my own comments, I think it's actually a promising approach but that down the road it will be necessary to model emotions if hum…

If it truly is a virtual brain, wouldn't it learn emotion as it develops? Humans are not necessarily born with love and compassion, we are taught it over time, otherwise such things would simply come naturally to us, which we all know is not true. How else could we explain people neglecting their kids and those kids turning into sociopaths, or how young children are more self-centered than adults? It would certainly seem to me that our emotional responses evolve as we continue living, so there's definitely a lot of "nurture" involved. I'm not an expert on any of this by any stretch of the imagination, but this just struck me as a logical fallacy: if it really is a brain, wouldn't it just learn this stuff naturally?

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#40

Post by jb55 »

seiji wrote: post #37
georgeorwell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support his claim, assuming that if we do have quantum minds that they cannot be simulated by non-quantum computers. Roger Penrose is certainly well-respected. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the un…

You seem to be claiming that quantum mechanical effects are somehow non-physical? It's not too crazy to speculate the brain leveraging quantum mechanicals effects to do something (although I agree, as a prerequisite for consciousness is a pretty big claim). Considering evolution has already leveraged these effects in smell and photosynthesis, which we do have evidence for.
Post reply on HN