4 ms·
I'm always suspicious of anything that people claim "works like the human X". In many cases (the brain especially) we have only the most rudimentary understandi
by JunkDNA 17y ago
I'm always suspicious of anything that people claim "works like the human X". In many cases (the brain especially) we have only the most rudimentary understanding of how things actually work. Our ability to create something that works the same way is therefore only as good as that rudimentary understanding. That said, it's clear they are trying to use this computer to understand more about brains. But whenever I read an article like this, I can't help but think of all those grainy movies of early failed attempts at manned flight by people trying to immitate birds.
- wglb 17y agoI think you have nailed it. I don't actually think we have a clue as to how the brain actually works. A while ago, we think it is like a telephone exchange, then we think it is like a computer, then we think it is like the cloud. The true advances in interesting computer results comes not from modeling the brain, but more from low-grade mimicking of the evolutionary process.
- a-priori 17y agoA while ago, we think it is like a telephone exchange, then we think it is like a computer, then we think it is like the cloud. There's a big difference between a metaphor and a theory. No one actually thinks the brain works like a computer. It's just a useful metaphor for working memory and other psychological phenomena. Quite far removed from the neuroscience underlying it. The true advances in interesting computer results comes not from modeling the brain, but more from low-grade mimicking of the evolutionary process. What does this even mean?
- wglb 17y agoBiologically Inspiried Algorithms, in particular Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming.
- a-priori 17y agoI would argue that brain simulations are the ultimate "biologically-inspired algorithm".
- joe_the_user 17y agoArguably, some late-sixties AI really did think an imperative program could simulate human intelligence. It seems like there has been enough research that present day researchers don't think the brain is very much like either a single-CPU computer or "the cloud". This indicates some progress. If anything, I'd say contemporary research seems to err towards mostly doing simulation rather than attempting to understand what "general intelligence" is. This has different dangerous - if we really really wind-up able to build intelligent machines but are not able understand them, dangers that were once confined to sci-fi will become more real.
- nwatson 17y agoMany believe in 'emergent' phenomena where if you put enough components together, put them in the right environment, and stress them properly they will react in unexpected and coherent ways that while describable and maybe useful from an external perspective can't fully be analyzed because the interrelationships are too complex. People were building bridges before they knew why the atoms in a beam of wood stuck together -- it probably wasn't even a matter they contemplated. They built complex bridgess before knowing fully how to analyze tensions and torques in such a structure. Likewise people will probably build useful biological wetware components and assemblies before knowing fully how they work.