5 ms·

I can't agree with the dismissiveness of this comment, and frankly I find its tone out of line and not with the spirit of Hacker News. There are insights that

I can't agree with the dismissiveness of this comment, and frankly I find its tone out of line and not with the spirit of Hacker News. There are insights that can come from studying the brain, that do indeed apply. Some researchers may not glean anything from such studies, and some may. I have no doubt that as neural networks get more an more powerful, we will continue to find more ways they are similar to the brain, and apply things we've learned about the brain to them. I certainly prefer to see people making comparisons of neural networks to the brain, that the old "it's just a glorified autocomplete" and the like. Relax.

krainboltgreene 3y ago
What does this comment add to the discussion?
- robbrown451 3y ago
  I dunno. My comment complained about the parent comment not adding positively to the discussion. And gave at least a bit of support for that complaint. Would you have preferred I emulate your style, and complain while providing no support for my complaint? Ok.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    Being positive is not a requirement of commenting on HN, but you should comment with something that is substantive, so yes I do think you shouldn't have commented at all. Tone policing is cringe.
    - robbrown451 3y ago
      Exactly what are you doing here then? But hey I guess I can do this too. How's this? Using cringe as an adjective is cringe.
      - krainboltgreene 3y ago
        > But hey I guess I can do this too. It sucks, doesn't it?
    - JKCalhoun 3y ago
      I don't like tone-policing in general. But when I opened this post the negative comment we're talking about was the top comment. That's makes me much more sympathetic to someone calling out the cynicism.
__loam 3y ago
No I think these comments are quite necessary. People need to stop making these comparisons because they have absolutely no grounding in how brains actually work. There are bad ideas that should be dismissed.
- robbrown451 3y ago
  You're saying the study has no grounding in how brains work? I'd think a more reasonable conclusion would be that the neuroscientists involved have no grounding in how artificial neural networks work. It seems the whole point is to bring in additional details of how brains work, that the think may be relevant to artificial NNs.
- p1esk 3y ago
  Artificial neural networks are the closest working model of a brain we have today. Lots of graph nodes, with weighted connections, performing distributed computation (mainly hierarchical pattern matching), learning from data by gradually updating weights, using selective attention (and/or recurrence, and/or convolutional filters). Which of the above is not happening in our brains? Which of the above is not biologically inspired? In fact this description equally applies to both a brain and GPT4.
  - aeternum 3y ago
    Many organisms have just a handful of neurons yet exhibit complex behavior that would be impossible given the weighted connections model. Not to mention single-celled organisms that exhibit ability to navigate. The model can be the closest working model but that doesn't mean it is complete. It's very likely that cells can store memories/information independent from weights.
    - p1esk 3y ago
      We can’t do that not because our mathematical neurons are too simple. We can’t do that because we don’t know the algorithms those biological neurons are running. Do you see the difference?
ramraj07 3y ago
No one disagrees we might be able to discern insights if we understand how our brain is wired. The problem is the current state of neuroscience is so flawed in its approach it’s not looking like they’re of any use. They don’t even understand how a 900 neuron worms system works but are more than happy to tap half a billion dollars from unsuspecting politicians saying they’ll map the human connectome. Go read the brain initiative proposal [1] to see how out of touch with reality the scientists in this field are. I agree with OP that sharp criticism of the entire field is fully warranted. 1. https://braininitiative.nih.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brain_2.0_06062019-final_rev_10302019_508c.pdf https://braininitiative.nih.gov/sites/default/files/document...
- andbberger 3y ago
  what are you talking about is this konrad kording's shitposting alt??? this reeks of naivety I certainly have many critiques of methods used in neuroscience rn (as a working neuroscientist) but to reduce those to the conclusion that the entire project of neuroscience is hopeless is absurd. We understand certain things quite well actually, and it's not at all obvious what "understanding" at a larger scale would look like. It is very possible that the brain is irreducibly complex, and that the model you would need to construct to describe it would itself be so complex as to be useless in providing insight. Considering that the brain is by far the most complex object in the universe I think we're doing pretty well. Furthermore, there are quite a lot of disagreements about the utility of connectomics. Outside of the extremists (Sebastian Seung and his ilk) no one thinks that connectomics is going to be the key that brings earth shattering insight. It's just another tool. There is a complete connectome for part of the drosophila brain already (privately funded btw), which is in daily use in many fly labs. It tells you what other neurons are connected to. Incredibly useful. Not earth shattering. also you might want to measure the neuroscience funding you deem wasteful up against the tens of billions NASA is spending to send humans (and not robots) back to the moon for "the spirit of adventure". cold war's over. robots will do just fine for the moon.
  - SubiculumCode 3y ago
    As another working neuroscientist, thank you. And cheers.

krainboltgreene 3y ago

What does this comment add to the discussion?

robbrown451 3y ago
I dunno. My comment complained about the parent comment not adding positively to the discussion. And gave at least a bit of support for that complaint. Would you have preferred I emulate your style, and complain while providing no support for my complaint? Ok.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  Being positive is not a requirement of commenting on HN, but you should comment with something that is substantive, so yes I do think you shouldn't have commented at all. Tone policing is cringe.
  - robbrown451 3y ago
    Exactly what are you doing here then? But hey I guess I can do this too. How's this? Using cringe as an adjective is cringe.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      > But hey I guess I can do this too. It sucks, doesn't it?
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    I don't like tone-policing in general. But when I opened this post the negative comment we're talking about was the top comment. That's makes me much more sympathetic to someone calling out the cynicism.

__loam 3y ago

No I think these comments are quite necessary. People need to stop making these comparisons because they have absolutely no grounding in how brains actually work. There are bad ideas that should be dismissed.

robbrown451 3y ago
You're saying the study has no grounding in how brains work? I'd think a more reasonable conclusion would be that the neuroscientists involved have no grounding in how artificial neural networks work. It seems the whole point is to bring in additional details of how brains work, that the think may be relevant to artificial NNs.
p1esk 3y ago
Artificial neural networks are the closest working model of a brain we have today. Lots of graph nodes, with weighted connections, performing distributed computation (mainly hierarchical pattern matching), learning from data by gradually updating weights, using selective attention (and/or recurrence, and/or convolutional filters). Which of the above is not happening in our brains? Which of the above is not biologically inspired? In fact this description equally applies to both a brain and GPT4.
- aeternum 3y ago
  Many organisms have just a handful of neurons yet exhibit complex behavior that would be impossible given the weighted connections model. Not to mention single-celled organisms that exhibit ability to navigate. The model can be the closest working model but that doesn't mean it is complete. It's very likely that cells can store memories/information independent from weights.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    We can’t do that not because our mathematical neurons are too simple. We can’t do that because we don’t know the algorithms those biological neurons are running. Do you see the difference?

ramraj07 3y ago

No one disagrees we might be able to discern insights if we understand how our brain is wired. The problem is the current state of neuroscience is so flawed in its approach it’s not looking like they’re of any use. They don’t even understand how a 900 neuron worms system works but are more than happy to tap half a billion dollars from unsuspecting politicians saying they’ll map the human connectome. Go read the brain initiative proposal [1] to see how out of touch with reality the scientists in this field are. I agree with OP that sharp criticism of the entire field is fully warranted. 1. https://braininitiative.nih.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brain_2.0_06062019-final_rev_10302019_508c.pdf https://braininitiative.nih.gov/sites/default/files/document...

andbberger 3y ago
what are you talking about is this konrad kording's shitposting alt??? this reeks of naivety I certainly have many critiques of methods used in neuroscience rn (as a working neuroscientist) but to reduce those to the conclusion that the entire project of neuroscience is hopeless is absurd. We understand certain things quite well actually, and it's not at all obvious what "understanding" at a larger scale would look like. It is very possible that the brain is irreducibly complex, and that the model you would need to construct to describe it would itself be so complex as to be useless in providing insight. Considering that the brain is by far the most complex object in the universe I think we're doing pretty well. Furthermore, there are quite a lot of disagreements about the utility of connectomics. Outside of the extremists (Sebastian Seung and his ilk) no one thinks that connectomics is going to be the key that brings earth shattering insight. It's just another tool. There is a complete connectome for part of the drosophila brain already (privately funded btw), which is in daily use in many fly labs. It tells you what other neurons are connected to. Incredibly useful. Not earth shattering. also you might want to measure the neuroscience funding you deem wasteful up against the tens of billions NASA is spending to send humans (and not robots) back to the moon for "the spirit of adventure". cold war's over. robots will do just fine for the moon.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  As another working neuroscientist, thank you. And cheers.