Hacker News Reader

Comment by nico | Hacker News Reader

You are technically correct. The weights of the connectome are not the same as the parameters of an ai model, but FlyWire absolutely does provide a weighted directed connectivity graph, where the edge weight is the number of synapses between neurons. The FlyWire literature itself calls those values “edge weights” or “connection weights”, and treats them as a proxy for synaptic strength

And agreed that this isn’t a faithful simulation of a fly brain. I’m using the connectome as the network structure/parameters for a computational model, then using its outputs as the teacher for the classifier. Not sure how the ChessFly uses it

Edit: in any case, these are just fun demos, they aren’t research papers trying to claim accurate physiological fly brain software simulations

View on HN

> You are technically correct.

That sounds like you're saying that they got you on a minor technicality only. That's not the case; they're right, you're wrong – you did not "download a real fly's brain's weights".

This is extremely impressive, but at the same time it has some pickle Rick plays chess vibes

I wonder if this should be considered some super-quantized version of the fly brain. Sub 1 bit level. Think like taking a 400GB model and reducing it to 400MB level of quantization. In a standard NN, this isn't really possible as it changes the shape of the weight rather than just the information for weight, so it isn't called quantization anymore. But with actual neurons, the amount of data needed to represent the actual brain enough to capture what is the fly really doing is so massive that reducing it down to the model might keep the shape but has quantized the model to a degree far beyond anything we see with LLMs. Maybe if we imagine an LLM trained where each weight is ~1KB (with sufficient training to actually make sure of those bits) is then quantized down to a 1 bit per weight model, but I'm guessing the IRL Fly to FlyWire is still orders of magnitude more quantization. So does it even count as quantization is a bit hard to argue.

They're a proxy yeah, but it's also somewhat loose.

There's a lot more going on at synaptic clefts, so just knowing the number of synapses doesn't tell you enough to model anything. You still need to know which neurotransmitters are used, how much, second-order effects like G proteins, basal firing rates, distance to the axon hillock, the shape of the neuron's effect on potential decay, etc.

And that's all to predict whether one neuron will fire. You could get very different behavior between different two neuronal pairs having the same synaptic count.

It's a bit like having a metal layer of a chip and nothing else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com