[HN Gopher] Artificial brains help understand real brains ___________________________________________________________________ Artificial brains help understand real brains Author : Jeff_Brown Score : 44 points Date : 2023-06-09 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.economist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com) | phkahler wrote: | For me the most interesting parallel is from (I think) GANs, and | other generative AIs. This is similar to the idea in psychology | that we are really doing a lot of projection with some correction | based on sensory input - as opposed to actually perceiving | everything around us. | | Also, real synapses are one of the most abundant features of real | brains and are the direct inspiration for NN weights. I'm not | sure the artificial brains help understand real ones, but they do | seem to validate some ideas we have about real ones. | kuprel wrote: | The left hand in that photo should be a humanoid robot hand. | Didn't actually read the article | cosmojg wrote: | As a computational neuroscientist, I find myself both terribly | disappointed and unfortunately reminded of Gell-Mann amnesia. | eep_social wrote: | https://archive.is/ryTWs | viableSprocket1 wrote: | Oversimplifying for brevity (and there is definitely more nuance | to this). This is basically the modeling approach: | | 1. Have a biological brain do a task, record neuronal data + task | performance | | 2. Copy some of those biological features and implement in an ANN | | 3. Tune the many free parameters in the ANN on task performance | | 4. Show that the bio-inspired ANN performs better than SOTA | and/or shows "signatures" that are more brain-like. | | The major criticisms of Yamins' (and similar) groups are either | that correlation != causation, or correlation != understanding, | or that it is tautological (bio-inspired ANNs will be more | biological). I'm not sure how seriously this work is taken vs. | true first principles theory. | adamnemecek wrote: | [flagged] | civilized wrote: | Isn't renormalization a technique by which divergent integrals | can yield finite results? How would it be a mechanism by which | anything operates? | adamnemecek wrote: | Read up on renormalization groups. | | There's this very fundamental problem in a lot of sciences, | given some phenomena, find the patterns to compress the | phenomena without knowing all the patterns a priori. | | It's like wavelet decomposition where your wavelets are | updates as new data is coming in. | | That's renormalization. | bigdict wrote: | The fundamental problem is that you keep coming up with | random bullshit to post on HN and you keep inviting people | to your discord basement to discuss it. | adamnemecek wrote: | > The fundamental problem | | Problem for whom? | | > keep coming up with new random bullshit | | Elaborate, what's bullshit? | | > you keep inviting people to your discord basement to | discuss it. | | Want to come? I can explain it to you. | TaupeRanger wrote: | Not really. The only real example given in the article is when | you hook someone up to an fMRI machine, collect data about how | the brain looks when it sees a certain image, and then have a | computational statistics program (NOT an artificial brain, in any | sense) do some number crunching and output the most likely thing | it's looking at based on things you specifically trained it to | recognize beforehand. We learn precisely nothing from this, no | medical or computer science advances are made from it, and it | doesn't remotely support the title of the article. | moffkalast wrote: | > We learn precisely nothing from this | | That's literally never true about anything. | cosmojg wrote: | >> We learn precisely nothing from this | | > That's literally never true about anything. | | But if this were true, data compression would be impossible. | moffkalast wrote: | OK you got me there I guess, but even learning that we've | learned nothing is learning in itself. Otherwise the act of | compressing wouldn't give any more information. | foobarqux wrote: | What have we learned specifically in this case? | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | I think the Economist article is exactly right - that despite | the massive differences between ANNs and the brain, ANNs are | indeed highly suggestive of how some aspects of the brain | appear to work. | | People can criticize the shortcomings of GPT-4, but it's hard | to argue that it's at least capable of some level of reasoning | (or functionally equivalent if you object to that word!). It's | not yet clear exactly how a Transformer works other than at | mechanical level of the model architecture (vs the LLM "running | on" the architecture), but we are at least starting to glean | some knowledge of how the trained model is operating... | | It seems that pairs of attention heads in consecutive layers | are acting in coordination as "induction heads" that in one | case are performing a kind of analogical(?) A'B' => AB match- | and-copy type of operation. The induction head causes a context | token A to be matched (via "attention" key query) with an | earlier token A' whose following token B' then causes related | token B to be copied to the residual stream at position | following A. | | This seems a very basic type of operation, and no doubt there's | a lot more interpretability research to be done, but given the | resulting reasoning/cognitive power (even in absense of any | working memory or looping!), it seems we don't need to go | looking for overly complex exotic mechanisms to begin to | understand how the cortex may be operating. It's easy to | imagine how this same type of embedded key matching might work | in the cortex, perhaps with cortical columns acting as complex | pattern matchers. Perhaps the brain's well known ~7 item | working memory corresponds to a "context" of sorts that is | updated in same way as induction heads update the residual | stream. | | Anything I've written here about correspondence between | transformer and cortex is of course massive speculation, but | the point is that the ANN's operation does indeed start to | suggest how the brain, operating on similar sparse/embedded | representations, may be working. | amelius wrote: | But (how) does the human brain perform backpropagation? | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | It probably doesn't use backpropagation of gradients. | Instead, the cortex appears to be a prediction engine that | uses error feedback (perceptual reality vs prediction) to | minimize prediction errors in a conceptually similar type | of way. If every "layer" (cortical patch) is doing it's own | prediction and receiving feedback, then you don't need any | error propagation from one layer to the next. | marcosdumay wrote: | You just can't go changing the layers of a neural network | independently of each other if you are doing guided | optimization. | | For a start, it's not even a given if increasing some | weight will increase or decrease the result. The neurons | are all tightly coupled. | | You can do it on unguided optimization, what is one of | the reasons I strongly suspect our brains use something | similar to simulated annealing. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Sure, we don't know the exact details (Geoff Hinton spent | much of his career trying to answer this question), but | at the big picture level it does seem clear that the | cortex is a prediction engine that minimizes prediction | errors by feedback, and most likely does so in a | localized way. Exactly how these prediction updates work | is unknown. | | Could you expand a bit on how you think simulated | annealing could work? | marcosdumay wrote: | It's more that most other things couldn't. | | Simulated annealing works on a localized way (and over | backward links), and is easy to appear in organic | structures. It also can use a "neighborhood error signal" | that is what our dispersion-based one looks like to me, | and is completely coherent with the error distribution | people have when learning a new physical movement | (although this is compatible with a lot of other | mechanisms). | canjobear wrote: | Approximately, via predictive coding | https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04182 | foobarqux wrote: | This is just false. Outside of the visual cortex there isn't | any evidence that brains work anything like GPT-4 or neural | nets. Producing the same outputs isn't evidence of anything. | | At best you have just stated a hypothesis of how the brain | might work, not any actual evidence supporting it. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Sure - you can't just look at how an ANN works and assume | that's how the brain does that too, but the ANN's operation | can act as inspiration to suggest or confirm the way the | brain might be doing something. | | It seems neuroscientists are good at discovering low level | detail and perhaps not so good in general (visual cortex | being somewhat of an exception) at putting the pieces | together to suggest high level operations. ANNs seem | complementary in that while their low level details are | little like the brain, the connectionist architectures can | be comparable, and we do know the top down operation (even | though interpretation is an issue, more for some ANNs than | others). If we assume that the cortex is doing some type of | prediction error minimization then it's likely to have | found similar solutions to an ANN in cases where problem | and connectivity are similar. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-09 23:00 UTC)