3 ms·
I agree with this sentiment. To be fair though, the authors did attempt to generate a biologically plausible RNN, which they published in a previous article...
by subroutine 6y ago
I agree with this sentiment. To be fair though, the authors did attempt to generate a biologically plausible RNN, which they published in a previous article...
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/45/22811.full.pdf https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/45/22811.full.pdf
I'm not fully sold on this model, but the article is fairly dense and I dont fully understand it. (Sejnowski, the senior author, was on my dissertation committee; he fell asleep during my defense lol)
- bra-ket 6y agoOh god, what he calls constraints are the "spiking nature of biological neurons", then he happily proceeds, just like you'd guess, to create this abomination of 'spiking RNN' and train this pretty much plain vanilla RNN via backpropagation, completely disregarding the energy spent, learning mechanism, and actual biological plausibility or relevance of this horrendous architecture as memory model. The first author knows just enough to be dangerous. >Sejnowski fell asleep it surely looks like it
- subroutine 6y agoDropping a link below in case you're interested - I have a side-project that takes a more literal approach to modeling biologically plausible neural networks (MCMC simulations inside 3D models)... https://github.com/bradmonk/plasticity https://github.com/bradmonk/plasticity