8 ms·
New $1.6B supercomputer project will attempt to simulate the human brain
- ComputerGuru 14y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't matter how complex the simulation is if there is simply not enough underlying data? As far as I understand, we simply do not understand neuron activity at a low level enough to make such a thing feasible.
- andreasvc 14y agoAnd another sort of "data": humans take one or two decades to develop into sensible persons; how are you supposed to educate a computer simulation? To a large extend for humans it also holds that garbage in is garbage out. We don't need massive simulation, we need understanding of fundamentals.
- kanzure 14y ago> As far as I understand, we simply do not understand neuron activity at > a low level enough to make such a thing feasible. Henry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format. http://channelpedia.epfl.ch/ionchannels http://channelpedia.epfl.ch/ionchannels http://www.neuroml.org/ http://www.neuroml.org/
- adrianhoward 14y agoHenry Markram has always been adamant that there are enough details already discovered and put into the neurophysiology journals. Of course, now you have to fish that data out and into some usable format. I would tend to disagree. For example as recently as ten years ago everybody knew that most of the computation was implicit in the neural connectivity of the synapses. We now know that there is significant computation within individual neurons - in the dendrites of all things (previously thought to be pretty much passive carriers of output from other cells - just wires basically). (See http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135703 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.2... for example). Go look at the neurophysiology journals - people don't seem having problems finding new things to talk about ;-)
- kanzure 14y agoI think it's a big jump to say that what I said is the same as saying (as you put your interpretation of my comment) "there are no new things to talk about". Besides, if you were to just assume that there's no details available, then you will never aggregate them. But the reality is that there is a great deal of detail in the literature, which can be used to build (even incomplete) models. You could even look at the model to help inform the toiling grad students which neurons to poke at more. Also, thanks for the paper. do you have others.
- neuroguy 14y agoThat is part of what we are trying to find out. We know a lot, but it isn't organized. Lets put together all that we have, and see what is still missing.
- kanzure 14y agoThis video/lecture is rather long, but it's an excellent introduction to what the Blue Brain Project is working on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFI7o69VJM&list=PLgO7JBj821uEq-iLteI2BgeXc8JY1PgF2#t=9m http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFI7o69VJM&list=PLgO7JBj... That was back when Henry Markram was still collaborating with IBM. It explores some of the intricacies of reverse engineering neurons and the human brain. Another good source of information is the Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/brain-emulation-roadmap-repo... This was the funding proposal that they sent for the Human Brain Project: http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/HBP_flagship.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/HBP_flagship.pdf
- martinced 14y ago"...an international group of researchers has secured $1.6 billion..." An international group of researchers has scammed $1.6 billion away. And that's with EU taxpayers money. Do you really think that anyone involved in deciding to allow that kind of spending has any idea as to where we're at nowadays regarding AI? Did any of them read "On Intelligence" (its author knowing more than a thing or two about AI)? I'm sure not. And I'm not happy my taxpayers dollars are funding this. I'm all for research and fundings going to research. But this one is going to be a gigantic waste not leading to anything. And in ten years people will apologize and explain why "x is not AI", "y is not AI" and why it was a gigantic waste. On a positive sidenote $1.6 bn for the duration of this project is peanuts compared to the yearly $140 bn the UE is spending ; )
- streptomycin 14y agoYou're sure that every member of a worldwide collection of top neuroscientists has no idea about where we're at nowadays regarding AI? Really?
- haimez 14y agoOf course he's sure. He's a hacker. A maker, man. If we were that close to simulating a human brain there would be implementations up on github already, waiting for a $1.6B supercomputer to become available to run it.
- kanzure 14y ago> If we were that close to simulating a human brain there would be implementations up on github already IIRC, the Blue Brain Project uses NEURON. hg clone http://www.neuron.yale.edu/hg/neuron/nrn
- neuroguy 14y agoIndeed it does. If you want to see open source models of the brain check out: http://senselab.med.yale.edu/modeldb/ListByModelName.asp?c=19&lin=-1 http://senselab.med.yale.edu/modeldb/ListByModelName.asp?c=1...
- davidmr 14y agoThis is fascinating. In a previous life, my job was building/running supers at a DOE lab, and while the work done on the machines were quite interesting, the really grandiose projects were all physics related (supernova simulation, liquid salt reactor cooling, jet combustion, etc.) The biological projects were still cool and I'm certain they were important, but they were harder to relate to (ion channel simulation, behavior of water in confined spaces, etc.), mostly biochemistry. This could provide a nice bit of press to the large scale HPC community, which sometimes suffers from its association with DoD and the "other, darker side" of the DOE. (Or other non-US equivalents.)
- tgflynn 14y agoI would feel less skeptical about the prospects for simulating the human brain if I had heard that someone had succeeded in simulating an infinitely simpler nervous system, say that of a spider, for instance, and obtained spider-like behavior from it.
- kanzure 14y agoNot a spider, but how about C. elegans? http://openworm.org/ http://openworm.org/ https://github.com/openworm https://github.com/openworm http://nemaload.davidad.org/ http://nemaload.davidad.org/ http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/nematodeuploadproject/ http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/nematodeuploadproject/
- streptomycin 14y agoThose don't really work, though: http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at_progress_on_c/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/88g/whole_brain_emulation_looking_at... From the Human Brain Project http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/neuroscience.html http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/neuroscience.html Why not begin with simple organisms like C.elegans? There are two problems here. The first is feasibility; the second is the relevance of our results. Feasibility. Neuroscientists have mapped all of C.elegans’ 300 or so neurons. However, enormous amounts of key data needed are still missing. For instance we do not have enough data on the physiology and pharmacology of C. Elegans neurons and synapses. And we still have limited data on the distribution of ion channels, receptors and other proteins on neurons, synapses and glia. Without this data we cannot build unifying models. A second problem is how easy it is to obtain the data. The crucial requirement for unifying models is the ability to access the data needed. Obtaining a deep understanding of the molecular machinery of a single neuron or a single synapse is just as difficult in C. Elegans as in human beings. And many datasets – particularly data on cognition - are actually easier to acquire in rodents, or even in humans. So we can’t just say: “let’s do this quickly in worms and do complex brains later”: we have to solve the same basic challenges, whatever brain we model. What we are actually doing is building a generic strategy we can use to reconstruct any brain. Relevance: Studying the “simple” nervous systems of organisms like C.elegans or drosophila, is obviously very important, particularly for molecular and genetic studies. However the organization, electrophysiology and function of the mammalian brain are quite different. One of the HBP’s most important goals is to contribute to the development of new treatments for brain disease. But pharmaceutical companies already have great difficulties in translating results from mouse to human beings; with simpler organisms these problems become much worse. If we want to make a real contribution to clinical research, it is probably unwise to invest heavily in simple systems, so distant from the human brain.
- felipesabino 14y agostill no skynet comments?
- 10dpd 14y agoThis is truly exciting - even if the project does not achieve the final goal of 'simulating' the human brain, the discoveries along the way will be invaluable.
- olliesaunders 14y agoI think this is a bad idea on so many levels. But all those aside, just think of all the other research that’s not getting funded because of these assholes.
- pgambling 14y agoI for one welcome our new supercomputer overlords.
- Nelsonned 14y agoHopefully they don't put Windows on that computer..
- DigitalSea 14y agoA Terminator Skynet scenario is currently playing out in my head. I wonder how long after this human brain simulation runs it takes for it to become self aware and starts attacking us? In all seriousness, if this works this could potentially unlock so many mysteries and help solve & understand a plethora of medical issues like mental illness. We are living in extraordinary times.
- munin 14y agoif a brain in a box becomes sentient, its attempts to "attack" us would probably look a lot like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1847 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1847
- AndrewKemendo 14y agoI wish this meme would die. It really just taints everything we are trying to do with Strong AI.
- scaphandre 14y agoDo you have any proof that Strong AI would be safe for humans?
- Jach 14y agoThe default outcome for AGI is likely bad (http://singularity.org/files/ComplexValues.pdf http://singularity.org/files/ComplexValues.pdf and http://singularity.org/files/SaME.pdf http://singularity.org/files/SaME.pdf), but not in the ridiculous way that movies portray it, and no one should be using the movies as a substitute for thought (http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...). There are so many types of AI minds, and so many ways for it to go wrong (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) that picking out a very particular fictional one to stress over, make movies about, and attempt to constrain (even framing it as a constraint problem of some more "primitive" desire to destroy humanity) as the only default mind, is pretty silly.
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoI get it, its interesting to understand our intelligence. But model a human brain? Why? Its pretty cheap to make them (and fun). They don't work all that well in the end - they're all bound up with food and sex and fear. Why not be even a little ambitious, and make something an order smarter? The human brain size is arbitrarily bound by the female pelvis size. Presumable the artifical one won't have that limit. And separate it from concerns of survival, paranoia, love etc. Maybe it could think straight, solve a few problems for us.
- daniel-cussen 14y agoThe size of the brain is also bound by the huge amount of calories it consumes, and by how delicate it is. 5 minutes without oxygen? Boom, the organ you spent 20 years grooming is gone. Have the munchies? With your brain burning up to 30% of your calories, it may be the culprit.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- adrianhoward 14y agoI get it, its interesting to understand our intelligence. But model a human brain? Why? Its pretty cheap to make them (and fun). They don't work all that well in the end - they're all bound up with food and sex and fear. Because we still don't understand the human brain in many, many, many ways. Building a model of it and comparing that model to reality is going to help us better understand the human brain. That, in turn, will likely help us understand things like dementia, mental illness, affects of drugs, etc. That's one reason. There are others ;-)
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoIts really, really complicated too. Much of it is incidental to our evolutionary path. Simulating that is like, well, simulating all the cruft stuck to a piece of toast once you dropped it on the floor? Figure out anything at all about a human brain, like thinking for instance, you can skip the cruft and still have a monumental achievement. In fact, the temptation to do that will be enormous. That's why the whole project seems fishy to me. Obviously simulating a subset is easier than the whole; any subset is pretty much a huge win; why are they talking about simulating it all? Sounds pie-in-the-sky.
- askimto 14y agoNever trust a neuroscientist. I doubt we will see an adequate simulation of a single human cell in our lifetimes much less a brain.
- duaneb 14y agoWell, what do you mean by adequate? I doubt we'll see anything close to a physically accurate (i.e. quantum lattice simulation) representation of a cell, but we already have models that are good enough to guide research before investing on (often costly) trials with actual cells. Furthermore, with things like these, I'm much less interested in creating a human brain than I am in creating something conscious on a human level, if that is even possible. Consciousness does not imply anything to do with accuracy to the human brain.
- askimto 14y agoI'd be thrilled if we had a simulation that we trusted so much that we could consider skipping trials on actual cells.
- joelbm24 14y agosomething tells me they are going to call it skynet
- troymc 14y agoIf free will exists, how will it enter into the simulation (or emulation)?
- Jach 14y agohttp://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29
- D_Alex 14y agoGreat question, and one which I would like to try and answer at length, but cannot spare the time... Short answer: There are many definitions of "free will", and many arguments about the subtelties of the meanings of these definitions. AFAICT, a good argument can be made that making use of some random phenomenon in reaching decisions implements "free will" for the vast majority of these definitions (note that "random" does not need to mean "arbitrarily random"). This answer is not deeply satisfying to me, but a full elaboration of issues would need several pages of text.
- mbq 14y agoI have a feeling that this is like an attempt to simulate a SOC computer on a quantum physics level based on a blurry microscope image of it in hope to play minesweeper on that. Basic principles (neuron behaviour) are hell of a complex and we must do a lot of dangerous simplifications, we know nothing about the firmware (pre-wiring given by the evolution of our species), finally the software will be completely missing (in humans it is created by few years of supervised training and self-improvement). Why not to try from the top?
- kanzure 14y ago> we know nothing about the firmware (pre-wiring given by ... Huh? That's what they are studying.
- coldarchon 14y agoImpossible. How do they know which area humans use to compute math? We know it because there are people with epilepsy when hearing a math problem. How could we achieve that knowledge with a computer?
- mbq 14y agoThis would require dissecting newborns, so I doubt it. Anyway my point was that it is better to approach strong AI by improving and connecting silicon-based ML methods than to put huge amount of power and effort into imperfect neural abstraction hoping that it will automatically become concious.
- kanzure 14y ago> imperfect neural abstraction hoping that it will automatically become concious. Consciousness is not the goal. What if your idea of consciousness is wrong? Even Wikipedia admits that nobody knows what consciousness is.
- mbq 14y agoOk, bad wording. s/become concious/acquire some higher functions of human brain/g