4 ms·
Nice paper. But my take is this: If this model of operation of the human mind is an emergent property of a simpler network architecture that's scaled up, nothin
by mateo1 3y ago
Nice paper. But my take is this: If this model of operation of the human mind is an emergent property of a simpler network architecture that's scaled up, nothing is stopping us from building a massive version of it and training it. This can be done in 10 years.
However if it's a combination of myriads of bespoke mechanisms that emerged evolutionarily then it's going to take a while, because we have to rediscover them through research or find a way to detect and copy them from our brains. For example if there are tons and tons of multi-scale mechanisms (network architectures+molecular dynamics+feedback systems+adaptive cell responses) for each function of the human brain then yeah it's going to take a long time. But if there's only a handful of bespoke systems related to cognition (memory, emotional regulation, motor skills, perception, motivation) then it's very much doable. Nobody thought that you could chat with a simple CNN 15 years ago, but here we are.
- ein0p 3y agoTransformers are not CNNs. Neural nets were the second best model for anything since their inception and it is proven mathematically that they can approximate any conceivable function so as long as it’s continuous. The issue at hand is that we have not a foggiest clue as to what it is we’re trying to approximate, so we’re now hoping that we get lucky again, and something will “emerge” somehow. Hope, however, is not a strategy. There’s no guarantee. If Demis believes what he says, he should put up a bet with a nontrivial amount. He won’t do that - he’s not stupid.