[HN Gopher] Using AI to develop a fuller model of the human brain
___________________________________________________________________
Using AI to develop a fuller model of the human brain
Author : geox
Score : 84 points
Date : 2025-01-25 20:36 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (magazine.ucsf.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (magazine.ucsf.edu)
| allears wrote:
| Ethical considerations are briefly discussed at the end of the
| article -- too briefly, in my opinion.
| echelon wrote:
| We're alive for an infinitesimal blink of an eye before an
| eternity of annihilation. Brain science is still in the stone
| age. We should be flooring it with the research. Absolutely
| flooring it.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Death is a blessing that may not always exist
| echelon wrote:
| If endgame entities have control over the entire light
| cone, they can bend backwards and pluck you out of space
| and time and put you into an eternal hell simulator.
|
| I wouldn't worry about what could or couldn't be.
| saagarjha wrote:
| One would think the endgame entities have better things
| to do.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| One might think the same of many intelligent and wealthy
| humans but a number of them are nonetheless cruel,
| capricious, and uncaring. Why should 'endgame entities'
| be any different?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Endgame by definition means they're bored out of their
| minds.
| hall0ween wrote:
| I agree neuroscience still in the stone age. Flooring the
| research I don't think will do much to change it. It's like
| flooring plasma physics research during the renaissance. We
| need different patterns of thinking, imo. Two examples come
| to mind: (1) our interest to boil down neural dynamics via
| quantization (what else would it look like, you may wonder.
| and exactly my point!) and (2) studying the brain in
| artificial environments. it's like look at fish behavior
| while they're in a tube in space
| echelon wrote:
| We need to stop thinking of human bodies as anything more
| than machines, and we need to start growing them in labs.
|
| Conscious humans are obviously special. But if we grew non-
| thinking bodies and used them for research, we could vastly
| accelerate medical science, research and development, and
| treatments. We could accomplish this with gene knockouts.
|
| It's too "icky" for people, so it hasn't been done.
| Mr_Blacky wrote:
| Then make yourself a lab rat.
| echelon wrote:
| That's what this whole gradient ascent game is. You're
| playing too.
| ben_w wrote:
| Do you mean in the sense of experiment on themselves,
| make themselves into a lab rat?
|
| Or more literally, that they should make for themselves a
| lab rat, in the way The Thought Emporium is?
| https://youtu.be/Z_ZGq8Tah0k?si=UI18mJ4k5Xn4OtfD
| cess11 wrote:
| Found two PubPeer posts, did someone else find more?
|
| https://pubpeer.com/publications/829F2657E307C1D8E5623363476...
|
| https://pubpeer.com/publications/C85230FD7895218EAAA34F6C675...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| They can now capture the activity of hundreds of neurons! That's
| simultaneously amazing and so, so far from being able to create
| the digital twin they claim.
| solidr53 wrote:
| Amazing, there are estimated 86 billion neurons in the human
| brain, so they are just short of 85 billion and change.
|
| But I think there is more to it, how many are used for speech
| vs vision, how much is used for motor control. If the idea is
| to build a speech neuron activity to some sort of ml data
| representation it's probably way less than 85b.
| listic wrote:
| Where should I look for a more technical description of exactly
| what they are doing?
| nikolayasdf123 wrote:
| check http://neuroscience-landscape.com/
|
| this is list of software, hardware, and other material on
| neuroscience
|
| UCSF is big part of BRAIN Initiative lead by Allen Institute,
| many of the tools and their work is collected in Open
| Neuroscience Foundation
| caycep wrote:
| i think eddie chang's paper on voice synthesizing is published,
| i forget if it was nature or neuron. it's prob on pubmed but
| i'm too lazy/sleepy to pull it. doris tsao and a number of
| collaborators have a few nice papers out w ML applications to
| single unit/LFP recordings
| suddenlybananas wrote:
| This is total snake oil.
| hall0ween wrote:
| Using AI to blankety blank
| robwwilliams wrote:
| Or PR happy talk.
| yapyap wrote:
| ugh, _ROLLS EYES_
|
| if I could embed a video on HN I would, such bullshit.
|
| This person probably saw the nonsensical amounts of money that
| was being thrown at shitty AI vcs and thought "I can put on a
| performance like that"
| jjulius wrote:
| Nothing's stopping you from linking to whatever you think might
| have a valid counterpoint, bud. But okay...
| xcv123 wrote:
| Counterpoint to what? The article is nothing but vague
| speculation and personal opinions.
| iamleppert wrote:
| The self-congratulatory tone and constant shilling of the
| author's career (they are a nobody who hasn't done anything
| meaningful despite the pedigree) makes me nauseous. The headshots
| and such make me think this is a ploy for easy (dumb) VC money.
|
| The association with UCSF is touted but based on my experience,
| it's nothing to brag about!
| cma wrote:
| Don't all university press magazine things have this kind of
| imagery? Seems very common and not really telling you anything
| at all.
| jsemrau wrote:
| This is one of my favorite YT channels working on a similar
| research without all the fluff:
| https://www.youtube.com/@ArtemKirsanov
|
| Also have a look at Michael Levin's work :
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin
| mettamage wrote:
| Thanks for the @ArtemKirsanov channel. I'm really enjoying his
| video on "How I make science animations" [1]. That's some cool
| Python & After Effects. I've always wanted to know how to go
| about it, especially since I have enough experience with Python
| and some experience with Sketch/Figma.
|
| [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaa13eehgzo&ab_channel=Artem...
| Daneel_ wrote:
| 3Blue1Brown also has a good video on mathematical animations,
| in case it's relevant for you:
| https://youtu.be/rbu7Zu5X1zI?si=KTAfolRBm1NsZOE9
| elif wrote:
| We're gonna be taking the machines word for it sooner than we
| want to.
|
| Either that or we will have to severely retard progress to human
| pace.
| eden-u4 wrote:
| When they say "in 20-50 years" it is implied that it might not
| exist ever. See nuclear fusion or AGI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-26 23:02 UTC)