Human Brain Project: $1.61 billion to achieve human brain emulation by 2024
nextbigfuture.com
nextbigfuture.com
The lab I work for is working with them on this project. Basically those slices are taken at 10 microns and we are working on fixing some of the problems (when you cut a brain that thin you end up with a lot of tears and deformations) Then our lab is reassembling the slices (with algorithms) realigning the slices so you can cut through the slices in any directions and get the cross section of those slices and look at them.
Realignment of the 8000 slices can take weeks or more (depending on how many cores you can run the stuff on) and is a rather complex process.
Here a link for those wanting more info: https://cbrain.mcgill.ca/tools/visualization
Scroll to the bottom (well look at the whole page, brainbrowser is what I've been working on). You can see a image of the interface and some of the slices. I'll try to find a video of the project.
</shameless_plug>
> Basically those slices are taken at 10 microns and we are
> working on fixing some of the problems (when you cut a
> brain that thin you end up with a lot of tears and
> deformations)
I'll try to explain what I know: For the most major tears and breaks we've actually had to fix them ourselves (Some were quite awefull, for example part of the right hemisphere on one slice broke off and was put back upside down ;p). For the less major thing, they can be fixed by looking at the surrounding slices, this is also how the slice are realigned, it's an iterative process where you take chunks of slices and aligned them then increase the chunks etc. At least that's what I gather. (Software developer talking about Brain imaging stuff is a bad idea ;p)
EDIT: Also as for the morphological information I'm pretty sure that some of it will be affected by the process but I don't know how much. Our interface will provide the original and modified slices and a heat map of changes for comparaison in those cases. I don't know how that can be avoided.
Any references to papers would be great :)
I still think it's far off, but not everyone does. If you believe consciousness is a property of running a brain or sufficiently advanced brain model, at what point are you allowed to stop running your model and it's not murder of a sentient? At one point can a model claim rights?
Especially as their goal is to use it for drug tests.
Also, can you simulate a brain without a body or is say hormones/blood sugar/nervous system not easily separable?
Someone's going to go soft.
Perhaps a new version of the Turing test is in order. Two computer programs, each pleading for their continued existence. The human judge/executioner is able to interact with both and has two kill switches, one for each. If one of them isn't turned off in 20 minutes, both will be turned off.
And people respond emotionally to those.
Also, see http://qntm.org/difference
I don't believe that hell exists now, but it would certainly be possible to create a technological hell if brain uploading and simulation is possible.
Torture is already horrific, but at least you can only be tortured to death once. With brain simulation, it would be possible to torture someone again and again and again.
I don't bring it up very often, but this is actually one potential positive case for DRM. I want control over my brain state. If Hell does not exist, Man may very well create it for himself. I've come up with some nasty tricks you can play with brain states that I don't even want to record to electrons, though the odds of nobody else ever thinking of them are zero.
Even before we get to minds on chips, there are nasty mind tricks coming ever closer to our reach. Imagine how much more successful an "investigator" at Guantanamo Bay could be during "interviews" if they (unbeknownst to the person being interviewed) had a "pleasure center" or "warm friendly feelings" remote control in their pocket. That just requires advanced brain prosthetics and some surreptitious surgery. An advanced form of putting a euphoric drug in someone's iv when they see you, so they come to like you a lot over time.
(in fact, I'm guessing that oxytocin is what this guy is spraying around so that the lions he's playing with don't decide to eat him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kjWBgA81LM see minute 0:57)
But who is "I"?
If there is a meat you, and a digital copy of you, does MeatJerf get to control DigiJerf's distribution?
How about one MeatJerf and two copies, DigiJerf1, and DigiJerf2?
How about when MeatJerf dies, leaving behind two digital-orphan-clones?
Actually I've spent a lot of time contemplating this sort of thing. One of the things you must be very careful not to do is to give in to the temptation to continuously shift frames every time you arrive at anything resembling an answer to a question. The invitation to "ah, but what if...?" everything may feel all profound & stuff, but it is a path to persistent incomprehension, not understanding, because you can "what if...?" your way to anything, and therefore it has no actual information content.
Regardless of the hierarchy of the consciousnesses - if they can still feel pain subjectively, where does the line get drawn as to what is right?
If they can independently think/be sentient then they have value to the universe (potentially) and it would be wrong to murder them.
J is just an abstract concept. The concrete demands come from individual Jerfs which could contradict each other.
I must be missing something.
Perhaps a concrete example would be helpful?
Norman Spinrad explores the depths of what it means to be human; more accurately, he delves into the nature of the soul in our increasingly computerized technological age. Featuring a poignant new Afterword by Spinrad, this reprinting of one of Spinrad's most cherished works is more timely than ever before. Can human consciousness exist within the framework of an electronic "brain" and still maintain its humanity? In DEUS X, a dying priest's consciousness is uploaded into the most advanced computer of the day - and what ensues is a thought-provoking, entertaining and overly intriguing clash between the various characters surrounding the experiment, a female Pope and a computer guru who'd rather be sailing and smoking pot, for example.
http://www.amazon.com/Deus-X-Norman-Spinrad/dp/0979477018/re...
Or perhaps something with some clear virtuous intent (and nothing particularly tortuous)... what about running Monte Carlo simulations using many identical instances of the same copy to find which pedagogical method(s) and steps best educates someone about a difficult to grasp subject? Even when the creation of the virtual minds is only of good intent, one can wonder about the ethics of it. What if anything is owed the legion of virtual students after the classes are done? I suppose some of them could be given some other useful employment to earn their watts.
Bostom's simulation argument says we're almost certainly living in a computer simulation. This opens up the doors right now for posibilities like "hell." Life after death (with memories, etc) becomes possible...all kinds of things. Scary, really.
But, even if it were: a computer simulating my brain will not be me; I will not experience what it experiences.
Suppose someone came from the future and claimed to be "me"; that is, 20 years from now I will go to the past; or something like that. Let's call the future me F and the present me P. I'm P, when P sees the color red, it's me who's seeing it. But, when F sees the color red, P doesn't experience the same thing. (it will experience it 20 years later, when it becomes F).
So if a clone of me experiences something; I won't experience it.
So if you upload my memories to a brain and then torture that brain, you wouldn't be torturing me; you'd be torturing a machine that happens to have my memories. In the same sense that if you clone me then torture my clone, he will experience the pain; but I won't.
If I do experience the pain of my clones, then we (me and my clones) must be telepathically communicating, or something like that, which, while philosophically not impossible, it's not compatible with physicalism, which you have to accept if you think consciousness can arise from running a brain model. I say telepathy is not compatible with physicalism because telepathy implies a super-natural communication between minds (where minds are implies to be super-natural entities).
I'm just saying if this theoretical "virtual hell" does really happen, it will be a computer hell, not a human hell.
Although I don't actually think a computer simulating a brain model will have consciousness. However complex that simulation is, it's nothing more than electrons flowing through a circuit, and this flow has no intrinsic meaning; I have no reason to believe consciousness can arise from such a thing.
People are made of atoms, and so far we haven't found any magical quality beyond physically stored memories that gives us reason to think a person at one point in time is the same as a person in another point in time, including ourselves as the person. With the mind-state cloning going on, at some point in time there is going to be one present person with a past person's memories being unsurprised at not having ended up as an upload, and another present person with the same past person's memories being quite surprised at ending up as an upload despite remembering having been a physical person who expects to continue living as a physical person. I'm not quite sure what kind of definition of self would let the past person maintain a justified 100 % expectation that they will end up as the non-uploaded version of themselves in the future.
If the simulation could talk to me, I'd rather it be treated decently.
This being said, I think there are ways to go around this problem. There are many ways in which my brain could be disabled so I wouldn't mind it being "tortured" or experimented upon. Consciousness is an emergent property - take away a few of its building blocks and it disappears.
I thought I arrived at this idea independently, and then was surprised to see that it featured in the book.
OTOH, considering I've read every Iain M. Banks book, it's a bit silly to talk about arriving at a conclusion independently (rather than having followed the same path).
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/colderwar.htm
Edit: this is a rather splendid wee story where "weakly godlike agencies" are treated like any other strategic cold-war weapon, leading to an even scarier version of the Cold War.
The non-humanness of an AI might slow the realization that creating an AI should probably embody the same responsibilities as having a child.
Even if those systems are integral to brain function, I'd assume that they are easier to simulate than the brain itself. Is it important to build a "brain simulation" instead of a "full body simulation"?
Technology can bring us literal heaven and hell.
I bet everyone here knows the former book. Kurzweil's exploration of the ramifications of thinking machines is fascinating, but his response to the question of ethics can best be summed up as between "meh" and "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."
The other book takes place in a future where consciousness can be digitized, and mankind has already surpassed the threshold of computing power represented by the ability to simulate/host consciousness. The fictional treatment of this technology and its impact on society -- especially on crime and law enforcement -- is fascinating.
To your examples of crime and law enforcement I'd like to add religion and drug use as well.
(minor spoiler alert)
All that's left of Christianity is basically a small fanatic cult, and drug use is far more casual and widespread.
If your body is almost disposable and death isn't necessarily inevitable, then I guess it makes sense things like this follow.
Morgan is a wee bit oversimplifying certain aspects, in particular the tech is almost too nicely packaged and very "physical". Which is certainly a possibility, but Permutation City crosses the speculation with the distributed computing trends we are currently experiencing.
1. Historically, technology has outpaced the legal framework. Look at copyright law, software patents, and internet commerce for some examples.
2. It is next to impossible to predict the impact that "Strong AI" or a "Singularity" would have on society. Science fiction literature is filled with thousands of different scenarios. Do we expect Congress or another legislative body to create a framework based on each potential manifestation of strong AI, on the 0.01% chance of it occurring in the next 10 years?
Food for thought - there's a chance that the first implementations of Strong AI occur as a result of a public and government-sponsored research program. There's also a chance that they will come about by a small team of dedicated researchers who will use the technology to their (or its) own ends, legalities and ethics be damned.
As, as long as most of the population / electable people are religious, probably the idea cannot be debated (as many religious would say consciousness cannot be simulated).
If you wish to explore this further, you may like to read the books behind the Halo video games, they're surprisingly good. For example, one of the books has an AI character, a cowboy, who controls the agricultural systems on a food-producing planet called Harvest.
Of course, there's also Cortana, one of the main characters from the Halo universe:
All this talk about strong AI sounds more like science fiction fantasy. We need to realize that this simulation, even 10 years later will probably be extremely slow, taking minutes or hours to simulate 1 msec of brain activity (it would actually be interesting to have an estimate of the computing power that will be required).
This is just a difference of degree.
How stupid would a real-life person have to be before you could put a bullet through their brain, effectively unplugging them?
The law protects humans (our species), probably because it's an evolutionary beneficial strategy. More specifically it protects consciousness that arises in a central nervous system (hence the abortion debate). There is no reason to assume that abstract consciousness in itself should be protected, unless it benefits the human race. Suppose the software "Consciousness v1.0" could run on your PC, would you leave your PC on forever ? Run multiple copies? Stop the people who try to update it?
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/046504...
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Consciousness-Minds-Thin...
However, it might be very hard to do without knowing what the emulated "being" looks like. Its hard to imagine placing legalities and ethics on something whose powers (and possibly, limitations) are absolutely unknown. Consequently, the law might be misplaced, restrictive, or downright abusive depending on what it turns out to be.
Having said that, I agree with your broad point - having that advanced technology without the social aspects to deal with it might be a nightmare!
From my basic understanding of the nervous system, to simulate anything approximating normal function, it would be necessary to emulate the body to some degree. There's just too much interdependence with chemical reactions taking place outside the brain for a model to be of much use in isolation.
Experiments have shown that if you yoke a paralyzed cat to another cat and let it experience a complete array of visual inputs, the yoked cat will still be completely blind. Interactive embodied experience is the foundation of cognition and consciousness. A brain in a vat is as empty as a computer without i/o.
It would be interesting to have a full-scale simulation to learn about how activation propagates, how different systems interact, yada yada yada. But until you give it a body there won't be any ethical issues.
I think you'd be surprised how much this applies to. Speech, even things like counting we rely on our bodies for.
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/selected_outputs/fohi_publications/b...
If we were simply emulating a human brain, we would not know how intelligent a system we'd create was or whether that system was sane.
EDIT: I was going off this quote from an article by well known computational neuroscientist Christof Koch: " Consider this sobering lesson: the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans is a tiny creature whose brain has 302 nerve cells. Back in 1986, scientists used electron microscopy to painstakingly map its roughly 6000 chemical synapses and its complete wiring diagram. Yet more than two decades later, there is still no working model of how this minimal nervous system functions.
Now scale that up to a human brain with its 100 billion or so neurons and a couple hundred trillion synapses. Tracing all those synapses one by one is close to impossible, and it is not even clear whether it would be particularly useful, because the brain is astoundingly plastic, and the connection strengths of synapses are in constant flux. Simulating such a gigantic neural network model in the hope of seeing consciousness emerge, with millions of parameters whose values are only vaguely known, will not happen in the foreseeable future."
I've searched for quite a long time for something like this and talked to a couple faculty members to no avail, so if you could turn up anything I would be very happy to read about it.
I agree with you on your last point: we can replicate behavior without going to a very low level of simulation. However, the case of C. elegans seems like very strong evidence that the connectome and current knowledge of update rules is not enough to create a model of an organism that replicates behavior.
Then again, I suppose that was the state of the world until sometime in the 1800's, and people managed to get things done.
http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-faq/#answer_26
We already do things 10x to 100x as fast, but in a parallel way. Look at reddit's "new" page after a popular post reaches the top. You'll have dozens of similar submissions riffing on the popular one within an hour (breadth of 100 people submitting in parallel, not depth of one person submitting serially).
Both are probably far too ambitious for this project. I'd even be quite surprised if they managed to accurately simulate a brain down to a molecular level.
What this sounds like is yet another attempt at a grossly simplified simulation of a subset of what is actually going on in the brain.
It remains to be seen how useful this is, nevermind whether this will bring us any closer to AI (how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?)
The short answer is that each part of the simulation, from ion channels and synapses to cell bodies to network topologies and cell distributions, is done at the lowest level that people in the laboratories can effectively isolate and study. From that they can derive mathematical models of each part, and integrate those models to simulate them interacting over time and space.
Is it a simplified model of the brain? Yes, but its the most detailed model that science can produce (or at least it aims to be).
how would you even measure the "intelligence" of a simulated brain without any sensory organs or an ability to communicate?
What makes you think that's difficult to simulate? It's been shown that primate brains are capable of learning to interpret novel inputs, such as a grid of electrodes 'painting' an image onto cortex. There was also a study where they implanted electrodes in a monkey's brain where the rate of activation of the cells surrounding the electrodes moved a cursor on a computer screen. The monkey learned to move the cursor.
This shows that simulated inputs and outputs wouldn't have to perfectly correspond with reality in order for the brain to be able to process it.
We can't even model bacterial state (regulation, etc.) right now. I strongly feel that we won't be solving this problem within our lifetimes. Probably not even in a hundred years.
I think we will solve it in the next 20 years or so, certainly while I'm alive (I'm 30). Like I mentioned in another post, it's a great time to be alive.
More to the point: If they want to get this thing running within ten years, they'll have to simplify at each step without knowing the potential repercussions of each simplification. I thus find it disingenuous to call their project a "model of the brain." It's an implementation of a very specific reduction of neurobiological state of the art. Sure, that can be useful, but only within strictly confined limits. You won't be able to do drug tests on this thing -- so much is certain.
From what I've read about Blue Brain it appears that validation is a central theme of their work. They are actively validating the small piece that they have already built (the neocortical column).
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3...
Apparently the canonical example that has worked pretty well is a computer model of the heart but I think it's a simpler organ in that it's mostly electro-mechanical, without such a complicated chemical system (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5560/1678.abstract - behind Science paywall)
This is cargo-cult science. They'll be lucky to end up with anything useful, except 20 years' government funding!8-)) This project could be almost as good a gravy train for researchers as Cyc (20 years without significant results and still funded).
> Is there any reason why they'll end up with a human
> brain instead of a lizard's?
I'm not saying I wouldn't love to burn billions of OPM building one, but then again practicality is rarely a requirement for me personally.
So Designing a brain won't make consciousness. If constructing a brain model needs $1.61Bn, then constructing the virtual world might need a dozen and may be more. After that, uploading a brain copy to the brain computer and a world copy to the world computer will create a real person like you.
No one actually can prove his existence. We are a bunch of mixed senses. And since this can be a stimulation, we can't prove that we are real and we do exist. Certainly, you can know who is behind you (and probably there is someone); but only by committing suicide.
But an interesting question that pops in my mind: Does our world allow more than one self-awareness existence? That is, if I upload my mind to a computer which is stimulating my same world, wouldn't it be me?
Here's Year One of the project: http://vimeo.com/8977365
Getting these out of the box is impossible AFAIK, because of the sheer number of neurons and connections to relate to one another. Especially, since the neural code is far from being decrypted.
You'd have to replicate the development process, probably starting with a model of fetal brain.
Is there anyone familiar with the research around? Are these concerns baseless? If not, how are they addressed?
What about a sadly-not-too-hypothetical case of a child being raised in total isolation? Do they not possess consciousness?
> A large portion of our instincts are hard-wired.
We are what we are because our brains are hard-wired to adapt to typical environments. Full isolation would cause substantial aberrations -- that's exactly what you observe in real-world cases.
A grown, working brain has been shaped by its input – changing the connections, the chemical balances, and other things we don't yet understand (but someday will). So when talking about a 'simulated brain', I think an embedded history of meaningful input, and continued interaction, is implied.
(Also, creating such a brain and then depriving it input might be torture, as with extended sensory deprivation in natural humans.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying that you're taking a rather unscientific leap of faith.
I take issue with your assumption that there is some 'clear' distinction between the goal of '"building a simulation of the physical brain hardware" and the 'goal to simulate human consciousness". A distinction, if any, between those goals is anything but clear.
Further, the people most interested in 'physical simulation' also tend to be 'materialists' who think a suitably precise simulation can reproduce everything interesting about a human mind, including 'consciousness'. Without any personal 'leap of faith' as to whether that's true or false, this is an interesting and deeply murky question.
edit, s/emergency/emergent
Can you imagine how weird it would be if we backed into proving a universal consciousness existed in a different dimension and an exactly modelled/simulated brain didn't get to participate because it wasn't given a 'soul' by that consciousness?
Or the flip side where our brain model does develop sentience as an emergent property and the spiritualists have to deal with the possibility that they are just animated meat.
Or the creepy side where you take an imprint of your current brain state, impart it on the model and suddenly the model thinks it's you?
Science fiction has explored these concepts for a while. I know that personally I'd like there to be something "special" about consciousness and/or sentience but I am rational enough to know that this isn't backed up by solid reasoning, just wishful thinking.
In a highly networked, highly automated, world the idea that consciousness could simply 'emerge' from a sufficiently constructed system is deeply disturbing.
While much of what the film "Eagle Eye" speculated on with a sentient computer connected to everything seemed pretty bogus, the ability to disrupt and render unusable a wide range of systems simulataneously by a disgruntled AI is not an experience I would anticipate as being 'pleasant.'
It's not the first time someone attempts to replicate a "whole brain"; somebody used Izhikevich simplified models to simulate a cat brain (Markram had a very public spat with them) a few years ago. Those results were not very revealing - they did notice some brain waves but nothing like an indifferent catish thought.
That said, this project needs to go forward. It's the LHC of computational neuroscience. It can be completed much faster, though, all we need is computers, lots of them.
That is unless you are not a materialist, i.e., you believe that the mind is the product of some non-physical plane that somehow interacts with the physical world through the brain...
Is there any good arguments in favor of materialism? It's always struck me as a completely ridiculous position.
First of all, almost by definition, we can't really look at anything that's not materialistic; it's just a limitation.
For instance, there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of awareness in something or someone. If a robot walks like humans, looks like humans, is it a human? Does it experience anything? Do insects have consciousness? Do animals have it? Does anyone besides me have it? Who says even I have it? How can we test for it? Can we even define it? Who says that my computer mouse doesn't have it?
Second, I believe that we only know a tiny fraction of what's out there, or of what's there to know, so it's hard to say that there's nothing beyond matter. And who even says that everything we looked at is materialistic? Is time materialistic? Can it be made from something else?
Third, there's nothing materialistic about awareness. It's not as though we can say "it's like a computer program, just more complicated". We can't say that emotions are like variables that control the behavior of a program.
Do you know any reason why awareness might be materialistic?
So far, we've found exactly zero processes which we can observe (i.e., which affect the physical world) that can't be explained by physics.
Yes, there are some processes which we can observe which we can't YET explain very well. But when I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my state of mind, not about the phenomenon.
It seems likely that consciousness / awareness is just another physical phenomenon that we haven't explained yet. Here are some other examples of "mysterious phenomena" which it took a while to explain: fire, why the sun rises and sets, the discrepancy of Mercury's orbit (explained by relativity), discrete energy levels (explained by quantum physics).
Now, what makes you think physics will never explain consciousness?
I think I answered your first and third. To answer your second question, both the theory of relativity and quantum physics dissolve time (it's just a variable), as I understand them.
Decision-making can be completely robotic. Will, or Free Will, and whether or not it's compatible with materialism, is another controversial problem. Awareness, is what you feel subjectively. I can build a robot that senses colors, and when it sees the color red, it screams "OMG! RED!!!". This robot however has no awareness what so ever. What you described is exactly the kind of thing that might happen with robots, but it has no relationship to the awareness/consciousness aspect of the problem.
> Here are some other examples of "mysterious phenomena" which it took a while to explain (...)
This is a weak argument, and really it's irrelevant to the mind-body problem. All things you described are physical states to begin with.
A more approximation of the mind-body problem might be some one saying something like this: fire is not the same sort of thing that water is. I can hold water in my hand, but can I hold fire in my hand? I can store water for later use; can I store fire for later use? Now this sort of argument could be right or wrong, but it seems like a plausible thing to say. It's not saying fire is some kind of a super-natural miracle.
I think we both agree that we don't know what awareness is; the difference is I'm saying I know what it's not: and I know it will not arise from a computer simulating a brain.
Overall I think consciousness is an interesting topic that's worth reading about. I don't mind someone being a materialist, but it doesn't seem like you appreciate the difficulty of the problem.
It's theoretically possible that one day we'll know more about awareness, and I don't know what that knowledge would be like, but I'm pretty sure it's not something that arises from running some sort of a computer program. And I can also say with about 85% certainty that it's not reducible to any of the physics we know about today.
It's also theoretically possible that we'll never know what awareness is. It might seem outrageous and somewhat a "forbidden" idea to speak, but it's a possibility. Either due to time restraints (the universe dying before we get there) or conceptual restraints (as in, maybe our minds are just not smart enough to figure it out). Unlike most other things in nature, I don't know of anyone who even came up with a hypothesis of what awareness might be. For instance, atoms where theoretically discussed long before science proved they existed, and many different models were advanced to explain and account for planetary motions (many of them were wrong, but you get the idea). But awareness, doesn't even have any model that might account for it; not even a wrong one. That's a strong indication that it might be something outside our comprehension; not much unlike the nature of space and time.
See David Chalmers, among others.
EDIT: Really? Downvotes?
http://www.diss.sense.uni-konstanz.de/virtualitaet/delanda.h...
Science can't prove that there aren't any supernatural requirements for a sentient mind.
However, Science has proven that most of our intuitions about our own cognition are wrong.
Since intuition is the only evidence we have that subjectivity and qualia can arise from mysterious nonphysical processes but not computational, physical processes, Occam's Razor demands that we accept the explanation which accords with proven laws of physics.
It has a name: dualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%2...
Why are you implying that it's stupid?
EDIT:
Also note, you don't have to be a dualist to think that consciousness is not a property of a brain model. You could be a materialist and think that consciousness can be given to a machine, but still think it's separate from the turing-machine model of computation. That is, hold the view that consciousness is not a property that can emerge from a computation process; but rather some other different kind of process that's not yet known.
Have any of you thought of the role of the nodes themselves? I find Stewart Kauffman's recent work intriguing [PDF]: http://stuartkauffman.com/index_25_1612352741.pdf
There are many many unknown genes and pathways involved in brain development and function. So without knowing these details, how would one go about 'emulating' a brain.
edit:[removed snark]