4 ms·

Fun fact: 80% of the brain's neurons are in the cerebellum, not the cortex. In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking,

Fun fact: 80% of the brain's neurons are in the cerebellum, not the cortex. In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking, language, seeing, hearing). 80% is spent on motor skills.

dinfinity 14d ago
> 80% is spent on motor skills. The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though. See: - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089997/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089997/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38663092/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38663092/
- LoganDark 14d ago
  So the 80% is spent on, more generally, habits and intuition. Makes sense.
  - TeMPOraL 14d ago
    Headline for IEEE: biologists show that human brain is basically a big FPGA devboard.
  - bharatsuthar 14d ago
    When cache is bigger than the database.
    - Dylan16807 14d ago
      Well it's not bigger...
  - itsalwaysgood 14d ago
    It's spent on 'fast, effortless' recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control. A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent). The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some 'flow' state: perhaps it's this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. 'Flow' is achieved. Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI. If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined 'optimal' for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: https://www.dream-rsi.com/ https://www.dream-rsi.com/ to eventually move towards '80%' of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards 'something else'. The ratio won't be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs. Through testing and iteration, we'll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity. Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it's less important because we're all looking at 'Quality' of results right now. But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to 'do work': I expect 80% to be accurate.
    - LoganDark 14d ago
      The result is the same: mindless scrolling consumes 80% of my brain while the 20% struggles to ever get anything done :)
      - itsalwaysgood 13d ago
        If everything is a push, and a pull, then choice and decision must be important. Nobody tells you what to think. It's simply easier not to.
keeda 14d ago
Oh, so Moravec’s Paradox is not really a paradox, it’s just an illusion! ;-)
mr_toad 13d ago
> In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking, language, seeing, hearing). 80% is spent on motor skills. Probably why robotics is harder than making a language model.

dinfinity 14d ago

> 80% is spent on motor skills. The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though. See: - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089997/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4089997/ - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38663092/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38663092/

LoganDark 14d ago
So the 80% is spent on, more generally, habits and intuition. Makes sense.
- TeMPOraL 14d ago
  Headline for IEEE: biologists show that human brain is basically a big FPGA devboard.
- bharatsuthar 14d ago
  When cache is bigger than the database.
  - Dylan16807 14d ago
    Well it's not bigger...
- itsalwaysgood 14d ago
  It's spent on 'fast, effortless' recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control. A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent). The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some 'flow' state: perhaps it's this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. 'Flow' is achieved. Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI. If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined 'optimal' for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: https://www.dream-rsi.com/ https://www.dream-rsi.com/ to eventually move towards '80%' of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards 'something else'. The ratio won't be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs. Through testing and iteration, we'll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity. Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it's less important because we're all looking at 'Quality' of results right now. But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to 'do work': I expect 80% to be accurate.
  - LoganDark 14d ago
    The result is the same: mindless scrolling consumes 80% of my brain while the 20% struggles to ever get anything done :)
    - itsalwaysgood 13d ago
      If everything is a push, and a pull, then choice and decision must be important. Nobody tells you what to think. It's simply easier not to.

keeda 14d ago

Oh, so Moravec’s Paradox is not really a paradox, it’s just an illusion! ;-)

mr_toad 13d ago

> In other words: only <20% of pur neuron budget goes to higher cognition (thinking, language, seeing, hearing). 80% is spent on motor skills. Probably why robotics is harder than making a language model.