Hacker News Reader

Comment by eleitl | Hacker News Reader

> “So, we have finally articulated our theory about the nature of the “logic” sought by Axel, and its supporting evidence,” says Papadimitriou, who is also a member of the Data Science Institute. “Now comes the hard part, will neuroscientists take our theory seriously and try to find evidence that something like it takes place in the brain, or that it does not?”

So don't get too excited yet.

View on HN

Seems like instead of jumping to neuroscience and fMRI, they should implement the model and see whether it actually works on practical problems. All they have is a simulation which they say "fits the data," which I assume is neuroscience data.

Demonstrate a breakthrough in machine intelligence and neuroscientists will probably get interested.

Computational modelling is already something that's fairly widespread for trying to understand the brain. The only novel thing here might be how his model is designed.

Well yes, but it still seems relevant to just ask does this work? If you implement it, does it produce some kind of intelligent behavior? If not then you've disproven the hypothesis, and if so then it might have practical benefit.

I mean, the whole point of implementing this would be to see what insights can be gained.

From the study:

> The basic operations of the Assembly Calculus as presented here—projection, association, reciprocal projection, and merge—correspond to neural population events which 1) are plausible, in the sense that they can be reproduced in simulations and predicted by mathematical analysis, and 2) provide parsimonious explanations of experimental results (for the merge and reciprocal project operations, see the discussion of language below)

This was an initial study, and I'm sure they're going to continue putting out papers exploring the model and how it compares with experimental data. It's not like everybody's going to see this one study and say "He's right! We should all use this model!" It's more that as more evidence is provided, the model becomes more relevant and it might be considered by others to be useful.

By "experimental data" do you mean something like "this had a pattern of neural activity that looks like what we've observed in biology," or do you mean "we tried driving a self-driving car with this method and it worked really well." The latter is more what I'm talking about, whether it's robotics, image classification, game playing, etc.

You do realize you can't just jump straight into "Let's see if this thing can drive a car", right? There's years of research and development that's going to happen before anything like that. And it's not like they're designing this to get a car-driving AI. They're trying to find an accurate model of the brain. Maybe, if results are promising, this can be turned into something like that in 10-20 years, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe sooner if it turns out to be particularly promising. Chances are this is going to radically evolve in different directions. They might hit dead-ends. They might make valuable insights about how some parts of the brain work, but can't generalize it or go from there to a general problem solving intelligence. There are all manner of problems, and I don't think you realize how complex the brain actually is when you're starting from first principles like this. They're at the level of simulating what individual neuron clusters do. That's like looking at electrons interacting and expecting to build a bridge by manipulating them individually.

I do realize, but I'm not saying let's try to jump right into general intelligence. Deep neural networks do all sorts of reasonably smart things right now, including all the things I mentioned. Seems to me we are at a point where we can test neural models to see whether they actually perform functions useful to an organism.

The first neural networks appeared in the 50s (with significant limitations), and proper research into them and appropriate funding first started in the 80s. NN's didn't become a thing overnight, and neither will this. I'm not sure why you're expecting this thing to be proven now. Science is slow. It takes time to build evidence and "prove" things and figure out how useful a model is.

Perceptrons were applied to image recognition tasks right from the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron#History

Applying them to real tasks revealed their capabilities and limitations, and when computers got better people took it from there.

That's a really weird way of thinking about it. "We discovered this awesome thing, but will the establishment take us seriously and do all the work to prove this?" He's not some independent quick- he's at Columbia university. How hard is it to message someone in the neuro department there and set up a collaboration? If the brain works this way, there'll be falsifiable aspects of the hypothesis you can identify to then collaborate with someone who knows what they're doing to design an experiment to look into it. It's not like neuro is one of those underfunded fields where itll be so difficult to get anything done. It and oncology are the star fields right now where all the cool kids (and grant funding) are...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com