2 ms·
> Neuroscience is so laughably primitive. Its hard to comprehend how complex of a machinery the brain is when you are "just" a computer scientist. I often see
by seesawtron 6y ago
> Neuroscience is so laughably primitive.
Its hard to comprehend how complex of a machinery the brain is when you are "just" a computer scientist. I often see people from the AI field eager to do a short rotation in a neuroscience lab to "learn how the brain works" and then go back to their company and develop a novel algorithm to make a paradigm shift in AI field - it's enthusiastic but laughably primitive.
The technology available to understand this complex machine is primitive when you compare it to electronics or AI tech. This is not because of the lack of funding and talent being invested in the field but because of the highly complex and efficient nature of the brain that has evolved over millions of years but only started to be investigated anatomically for less than a couple of centuries. Arguably, the same problem exists in the AI field too when it comes to understanding the black-box models. We don't even entirely comprehend how the artifical neural network based models work in many use-cases; there are ideas floating around to make sense of it which use the same strategy of "plug in/out and play" to understand what parameter affects what in your model which to neuroscientists seems (yet again) laughably primitive.
- esc_colon_q 6y agoAnd people from neuro come into AI for short rotations pretty regularly to do astoundingly naive work there which amounts to nothing at all. Maybe both fields could stop flinging shit and realize that they are both missing a key piece of the puzzle...