MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Even by the standards of the TED conference, Henry Markram’s 2009 TEDGlobal talk was a mind-bender. He took the stage of the Oxford Playhouse, clad in the requisite dress shirt and blue jeans, and announced a plan that—if it panned out—would deliver a fully sentient hologram within a decade. He dedicated himself to wiping out all mental disorders and creating a self-aware artificial intelligence. And the South African–born neuroscientist pronounced that he would accomplish all this through an insanely ambitious attempt to build a complete model of a human brain—from synapses to hemispheres—and simulate it on a supercomputer. Markram was proposing a project that has bedeviled AI researchers for decades, that most had presumed was impossible. He wanted to build a working mind from the ground up. [...] And now Markram has funding almost as outsized as his ideas. On January 28, 2013, the European Commission—the governing body of the European Union—awarded him 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion). For decades, neuroscientists and computer scientists have debated whether a computer brain could ever be endowed with the intelligence of a human. It’s not a hypothetical debate anymore. Markram is building it. Will he replicate consciousness? The EU has bet $1.3 billion on it.
Comments
What is really scary is that he is first going to build a rat brain. Kind of adds a whole new dimension to the Terminator franchise, no?
by EmmaZahn on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 9:19am
As someone who has worked in the field making my own models of regions of the mammalian brain, I feel compelled to state that until he's finished it's still a hypothetical debate. I'm confident that we'll eventually get there, but I'm highly skeptical that we have enough neuroscientific knowledge to get there within a decade. (I do think we have the computing power, however.) The good news is that trying to get there within a decade should add significantly to that neuroscientific knowledge. (I suppose the bad news is that we're far more likely to create all kinds of "insane" models before we create our first "sane" one.)
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 2:47pm
Having studied a little bit of AI from the psychology-philosophy side, I definitely think biological models are the way to go. The folks who want to reproduce the functionality of the mind from heuristic models are totally clueless.
That said, do you think we're even close to being able to model a rat brain, let alone a human brain? My wife studies T-cell receptors, and she doesn't even have enough computing power to model a complex molecule. So I have to assume that the models Markram has in mind are relatively abstract, and I wonder if they'll actually simulate the biology effectively.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 05/20/2013 - 6:51pm
The million dollar question (or possibly billion dollar) is how much detail do we actually need to reproduce the cognitive behavior of the brain. Can we get by with neurons as abstract as McCulloch-Pitts, which don't even have integrate-and-fire capabilities? My guess is no. Can we get by with Izhikevich neurons which require about 10x as many computations as McCulloch-Pitts, but significantly fewer than Hodgkin-Huxley? I hope so. It's possible that not even Hodgkin-Huxley or even models based on cable theory will be sufficient. Will we actually require quantum computers to mimic quantum behavior of the brain? My guess is no, but at this point, it's just a guess.
Once we can adequately model a rat brain, we're only a few years from being able to model a human brain, in my opinion, as most of the fundamentals are essentially the same. A significant difference, I suppose, is that we're in a much better position to notice when the models of the human brain are slightly off, so that we might fool ourselves into thinking we've adequately modeled a rat brain when we actually haven't.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 05/21/2013 - 8:08am
Thanks for the info. Suppose computational constraints weren't an issue. Are there other limitations? How do you read the entire neural structure of an actual brain?
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 05/21/2013 - 1:44pm
In my opinion computational constraints are not the large pole in the tent. Neuroscientific knowledge is, as you allude to. I think that we might actually be able to model the vast majority of our 10 billion neurons as Izhikevich type neurons, which we already have enough computational power to do (on super-computers, that is). The problem is, what parameters do we use for those models? How do we connect them? How do they respond to coincidental firing (i.e., how do they learn)? An approach I used in my research was to take a wide range of possible values for many of those parameters and let evolution find viable solutions for me. That doesn't mean those parameters are going to necessarily model the internals of a rat brain, but they'd model how the brain behaved, where by "behaved", I mean mimicked the neural firing pattern observed in rats under similar stimuli. My results were interesting, but I wouldn't exactly call them earth-shattering. Just don't tell that to my dissertation committee, as they thought it was good enough for my PhD.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 05/21/2013 - 3:15pm