4 ms·

The brain is a neural net. And so is the LLM.

Jensson 2y ago
> The brain is a neural net No it isn't, neural networks aren't a network of neurons, they are just named after neurons but they are nothing alike. Neurons grow new connections etc and do a whole slew of different things that neural networks doesn't do. The ability to grow new connections seems like an integral part to intelligence that neural networks can't replicate, at least not without changing them to something very different than they are today.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked. You’re just pointing out differences between a LLM and a brain. The fact that they are both neural nets is a similarity. Forming new connections Is not integral. Connections don’t form in seconds so second to second existence is a static neural network. Thus your second to second existence is comparable to an LLM in the sense that both neural networks don’t form new connections. We can though. We can make neural networks form new connections.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked The brain neurons are not the same kind of object as neural net neurons, hence its not a neural net. It is like saying a dragonfly is a helicopter since the helicopter were designed to look a bit like a firefly, no a dragonfly isn't a helicopter they fly in totally different ways the dragonfly has wings and thus don't even move similarly. > Connections don’t form in seconds so second to second existence is a static neural network But a human isn't intelligent over a second, and synapses do form over longer periods which is what it takes for humans to solve harder problems. > We can though. We can make neural networks form new connections. I said the neural network couldn't form those, not that we couldn't alter the neural network. That is a critical difference, our brains updates itself intelligently on its own, that is integral to its function, if our brains couldn't do that we wouldn't be intelligent, when that happens we say a person has Alzheimer's. You wouldn't hire a person with far gone Alzheimer's precisely because they can't learn. Edit: So you can see in brains being able to form connections makes it smarter. In our neural nets when we try to alter their connections live they get dumber, which is why we don't do it. That should tell you that we are clearly missing something critical here.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      >But a human isn't intelligent over a second, and synapses do form over longer periods which is what it takes for humans to solve harder problems. So you’re saying as you talk to me right now you’re not conscious? Neurons didn’t grow connections right now so you’re not alive? You won’t form connections in an hour so during that hour your some kind of robot and suddenly when you form a connection you’re not? We have algorithms that can self evolve neural networks in computers on its own. So you’re actually wrong here there’s progress on this front. I am not missing anything critical. I know there are huge differences between the human brain and an LLM but the statement remains true. Both are neural networks. The problem here is that you either don’t understand vocabulary or you think everyone around you is so dumb they can’t see the differences. Everyone and I mean everyone knows what you’re saying in the paragraph above. It’s common knowledge anyone can pull out their ass and your regurgitating it as if your a scientist or expert. Get this, BOTH are still neural networks and both have commonalities despite the distinctions. Both are also Turing complete.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked Fun fact. Neural nets are not made of neurons and more than the python programming language is made of snakes.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      False fact.
mrbungie 2y ago
It isn't that simple, the substrate is totally different. The brain is not a GPU, not by any stretch, even if it "runs something analogue to a LLM" inside.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Of course it’s not that simple. Who on the face of the earth doesn’t know the brain is not a gpu? Think really hard on this. Isn’t what you stated obvious information to a programmer? The neuron in ML is based off of the simplest mathematical model of what a neuron does. The neuron in a human brain is a physical realization of this with much much more complexity where much of this complexity is arbitrary as a side effect of being physically realized. But again I’m regurgitating what everyone knows
  - mrbungie 2y ago
    You've said it, everyone knows this. You can't build a model out of an object and then say that said object is an instance of the model. The model is an useful derived abstraction that sometines can serve for better understanding reality and making predictions (emphasis in sometimes), but it is not reality itself.
azinman2 2y ago
Only in name, given by people in machine learning. Really it’s more accurate to say they’re both networks, except one is a million times more complicated in its design.
- ben_w 2y ago
  These days it's looking like closer to a factor a thousand than a million. Appearances can be deceptive and intelligence in brains may be more complex than they currently looks, but appearances are also the only thing most of us can judge it by at this point — while there's more stuff going on in living cells, nothing I've seen says the stuff needed to keep the cells themselves alive is directly contributing to the intelligence of the wet network in my skull. It's quite surprising that such a simple mind as an LLM is so very capable. What is all the rest of our human brain doing, when the LLMs demonstrate that a mere cubic centimetre of brain tissue could be reorganised to speak 50 languages fluently, let alone all the other things?
  - mrbungie 2y ago
    This post is full of speculation. For starters, human minds do more than just language. There are some arguments (Moravec's paradox) that posit that language is easy, while keeping the rest of the body working is the real hard problem. I've yet to see an humanoid robot controlled by an LLM that can tackle difficult physical problems like riding a bike or skiing in for the first time real-time, just as humans, that need to coordinate at least 5 senses (some say up to 20 but I digress) plus emotions and a train of thought to do so. Plus, sure, LLMs are simpler (that only works if you don't count the full complexity of its substrate: a lot of GPUs, interconnects, Data Centers, etc), yet they consume an insane amount of energy and matter when compared to humans. It is surprising that LLMs are so capable, but for 2000kcal a day humans are still more impressive to me. People see a model dominating language and start thinking the only thing humans do is high-level language and reasoning. That may be why the brilliant minds of this decade talk about replacing white-collars, but no plate-cleaning bot in sight. Metacommentary: a lot of LLM-human equality apologists seem to have little knowledge of the AI field and its history, as these themes are not new at all.

> The brain is a neural net No it isn't, neural networks aren't a network of neurons, they are just named after neurons but they are nothing alike. Neurons grow new connections etc and do a whole slew of different things that neural networks doesn't do. The ability to grow new connections seems like an integral part to intelligence that neural networks can't replicate, at least not without changing them to something very different than they are today.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked. You’re just pointing out differences between a LLM and a brain. The fact that they are both neural nets is a similarity. Forming new connections Is not integral. Connections don’t form in seconds so second to second existence is a static neural network. Thus your second to second existence is comparable to an LLM in the sense that both neural networks don’t form new connections. We can though. We can make neural networks form new connections.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked The brain neurons are not the same kind of object as neural net neurons, hence its not a neural net. It is like saying a dragonfly is a helicopter since the helicopter were designed to look a bit like a firefly, no a dragonfly isn't a helicopter they fly in totally different ways the dragonfly has wings and thus don't even move similarly. > Connections don’t form in seconds so second to second existence is a static neural network But a human isn't intelligent over a second, and synapses do form over longer periods which is what it takes for humans to solve harder problems. > We can though. We can make neural networks form new connections. I said the neural network couldn't form those, not that we couldn't alter the neural network. That is a critical difference, our brains updates itself intelligently on its own, that is integral to its function, if our brains couldn't do that we wouldn't be intelligent, when that happens we say a person has Alzheimer's. You wouldn't hire a person with far gone Alzheimer's precisely because they can't learn. Edit: So you can see in brains being able to form connections makes it smarter. In our neural nets when we try to alter their connections live they get dumber, which is why we don't do it. That should tell you that we are clearly missing something critical here.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >But a human isn't intelligent over a second, and synapses do form over longer periods which is what it takes for humans to solve harder problems. So you’re saying as you talk to me right now you’re not conscious? Neurons didn’t grow connections right now so you’re not alive? You won’t form connections in an hour so during that hour your some kind of robot and suddenly when you form a connection you’re not? We have algorithms that can self evolve neural networks in computers on its own. So you’re actually wrong here there’s progress on this front. I am not missing anything critical. I know there are huge differences between the human brain and an LLM but the statement remains true. Both are neural networks. The problem here is that you either don’t understand vocabulary or you think everyone around you is so dumb they can’t see the differences. Everyone and I mean everyone knows what you’re saying in the paragraph above. It’s common knowledge anyone can pull out their ass and your regurgitating it as if your a scientist or expert. Get this, BOTH are still neural networks and both have commonalities despite the distinctions. Both are also Turing complete.
- dartos 2y ago
  > The brain is a neural net. It’s made up of neurons that are networked Fun fact. Neural nets are not made of neurons and more than the python programming language is made of snakes.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    False fact.

mrbungie 2y ago

It isn't that simple, the substrate is totally different. The brain is not a GPU, not by any stretch, even if it "runs something analogue to a LLM" inside.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Of course it’s not that simple. Who on the face of the earth doesn’t know the brain is not a gpu? Think really hard on this. Isn’t what you stated obvious information to a programmer? The neuron in ML is based off of the simplest mathematical model of what a neuron does. The neuron in a human brain is a physical realization of this with much much more complexity where much of this complexity is arbitrary as a side effect of being physically realized. But again I’m regurgitating what everyone knows
- mrbungie 2y ago
  You've said it, everyone knows this. You can't build a model out of an object and then say that said object is an instance of the model. The model is an useful derived abstraction that sometines can serve for better understanding reality and making predictions (emphasis in sometimes), but it is not reality itself.

azinman2 2y ago

Only in name, given by people in machine learning. Really it’s more accurate to say they’re both networks, except one is a million times more complicated in its design.

ben_w 2y ago
These days it's looking like closer to a factor a thousand than a million. Appearances can be deceptive and intelligence in brains may be more complex than they currently looks, but appearances are also the only thing most of us can judge it by at this point — while there's more stuff going on in living cells, nothing I've seen says the stuff needed to keep the cells themselves alive is directly contributing to the intelligence of the wet network in my skull. It's quite surprising that such a simple mind as an LLM is so very capable. What is all the rest of our human brain doing, when the LLMs demonstrate that a mere cubic centimetre of brain tissue could be reorganised to speak 50 languages fluently, let alone all the other things?
- mrbungie 2y ago
  This post is full of speculation. For starters, human minds do more than just language. There are some arguments (Moravec's paradox) that posit that language is easy, while keeping the rest of the body working is the real hard problem. I've yet to see an humanoid robot controlled by an LLM that can tackle difficult physical problems like riding a bike or skiing in for the first time real-time, just as humans, that need to coordinate at least 5 senses (some say up to 20 but I digress) plus emotions and a train of thought to do so. Plus, sure, LLMs are simpler (that only works if you don't count the full complexity of its substrate: a lot of GPUs, interconnects, Data Centers, etc), yet they consume an insane amount of energy and matter when compared to humans. It is surprising that LLMs are so capable, but for 2000kcal a day humans are still more impressive to me. People see a model dominating language and start thinking the only thing humans do is high-level language and reasoning. That may be why the brilliant minds of this decade talk about replacing white-collars, but no plate-cleaning bot in sight. Metacommentary: a lot of LLM-human equality apologists seem to have little knowledge of the AI field and its history, as these themes are not new at all.