Why can't people make ai's by making a neuron sim and then scaling it up with a supercomputer to the point where it has a humans number of neurons and then raise it like a human?
I know current learning models work a little like neurons but why not just make a sim that works exactly like how we understand neurons work
Simulating even one neuron is very complex. Neurons in artificial neuron nets used in machine learning are a gross oversimplification. On top on this you need to get the wiring right. On top on this you need to get the sensorial system right (a brain without input is worthless). On top of this you need an environment. So it's multiple layers of complexity that we don't have
What I find fascinating is the efficiency of the brain.
With a supercomputer and the energy of a nuclear station to run it we are able to simulate a handful of neurons interacting with each other.
On the other hand the brain with billions of neurons only requires the energy of one or two potato to run.
To be fair, nature had millions od years to optimize the power consumption and we only observe the successful results since the failures didn't survive.
We're having our particular technological revolutions as well. In little more than a century we've managed to construct computing devices with capabilities that may have taken thousands of years to be achieved by nature.
Because we don't understand it.
To clarify:
We don't even know how human intelligence/consciousness works, let alone how to simulate it.
But we know how an individual neuron works.
The issue with OPs idea is we don't know how to tell a computer what a bunch of neurons do to create an intelligence/consciousness.
Heck, we barely know how neurons work. Sure, we've got the important stuff down like action potentials and ion channels, but there's all sorts of stuff we don't fully understand yet. For example, we know the huntingtin protein is critical to neuron growth (maybe for axons?), and we know if the gene has too many mutations it causes Huntington's disease. But we don't know why huntingtin is essential, or how it actually effects neuron growth. We just know that cells die without it, or when it is misformed.
Now, take that uncertainty and multiply it by the sheer number of genes and proteins we haven't fully figured out and baby, you've got a stew going.
To add to this, a new type of brain cell was discovered just last year. (I would have linked directly to the study but there was a server error when I followed the cite.)
To understand the complexity of the human brain, you need a brain more complex than the human brain.
Do you need to understand it in order to try it out and see what happens? I see lots of things experimenting with a small colony of neurons. Making machines that move using the organic part to navigate or making them play games (still waiting on part 2 of the Doom one). Couldn't that be scaled up to human brain size and at least scanned to see what kind of activity is going on and compare it to a real human brain?
We need to understand what we're simulating to simulate it. We know the structure of neurons at a simple level, we know how emergent systems represent more complex concepts... we don't know how the links to build that system are constructed.
Even assuming we can model the same number of (simple machine learning model) neurons, it's the connections that matter. The number of possible connections in the human brain is literally greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
I just want to make sure one of your words there is emphasized "possible" (Edit it's also wrong as I explained below)
Yes - the value of 86 billion choose two is insanely huge... one might even say mind bogglingly huge! However, in actuality, we've got about 100 trillion neural connections given our best estimates right now. That's about a thousand connections per neuron.
It's a big number but one we could theoretically simulate - it also must be said that it's impossible for the simulation of the brain to be technically impossible... We've each got a brain and there are a billion of us made up out of an insignificant portion of the mass+energy available terrestrially - eventually (unless we extinct ourselves first) we'll start approaching neurological information storage density - we're pretty fucking clever so we might even exceed it!
Edit for math:
So I did a thunk and 86 billion choose 2 actually isn't that big, I was thinking of 86 billion factorial but it's actually just 86 billion squared (it'd be 86 billion less than that but self-referential synapses are allowed).
Apparently this "greater than the number of atoms in the universe" line came from famously incorrect shame of Canada Jordan Peterson... and, uh, he's just fucking wrong (so math can be added to the list of things he's bad at - and that's already a long list).
Yea so - 86 billion squared = impressively large number... but not approaching 10^80 impressively large.
I've been quoting Jordan Peterson for years?! Ahhh fuck.
Short answer: Neural Networks and other āmachine learningā technologies are inspired by the brain but are focused on taking advantage of what computers are good at. Simulating actual neurons is possible but not something computers are good at so it will be slow and resource intensive.
Long Answer:
Thank your AI LLM for this structured robotic reply in an easy to digest numbered list.
Lmfao I actually wrote that by hand but it does kinda look AI generated
Whatever you say, SkyNet. I upvoted your comment. Remember me buddy ā¤ļø
Nah, too focused and not enough repetition and generalizations ;)
Main reason for answering: thanks!
That's kinda the idea of neural network AI
The problem is that neurons aren't transistors, they don't operate in base 2 arithmetic, and are basically an example of chaos theory, where a system is narrow enough for outer bounds to be defined, yet complex enough that the amount of "picture resolution" needed to be able to accurately predict how it will behave is currently beyond our scope of understanding to replicate or even theorize on.
This is basically the realm where you're no longer asking for math to fetch a logical answer to a question and more trying to use it as a way to perfectly calculate the future like an oracle trying to divine one's own fate from the stars. It even comes with its own system of cool runes!
I fully imagine we will have a precise calculation of Rayo's Number before we have a binary computer capable of being raised as a human with a fully human intelligence and emotional depth.
More likely I see the "singularity" coming in the form of someone who figures out how to augment human intelligence with an AI neural implant capable of the sorts of complex calculations that are impossible for a human mind to fathom while benefiting from human abilities for pattern recognition to build more accurate models.
If someone figures out how to do this without accidentally creating a cheap 80's slasher villain, it will immediately become the single most sought after medical device in human history, as these new augmented mind humans will instantly become a major competitive pressure for even most manual labor jobs.
Neurons undergo physical change in their interconnectivity. New connections (synapses) are created, strengthened, and lost over time. We don't have circuits that can do that.
Actually, neuron-based machine learning models can handle this. The connections between the fake neurons can be modeled as a "strength", or the probability that activating neuron A leads to activation of neuron B. Advanced learning models just change the strength of these connections. If the probability is zero, that's a "lost" connection.
Those models don't have physical connections between neurons, but mathematical/programmed connections. Those are easy to change.
That's a vastly simplified model. Real neurons can't be approximated with a couple of weights - each neuron is at least as complex as a multi-layer RNN.
I'd love to know more.
I recently read "The brain is a computer is a brain: neuroscienceās internal debate and the social significance of the Computational Metaphor" and found it compelling. It bristled a lot of feathers on Lemmy, but think their critique is valid.
Do you have any review resources? I have a bit of knowledge around biology and biochemistry, but haven't studied neuroscience.
And no pressure. It's a lot to ask dor some random person on the internet. Cheers!
Here's the video that introduced me to the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmtQPrH-gC4
He explains it very well and gives a lot of references :)
Did OP mean accomplishing the connectivity and with software rather than hardware? No, we donāt have hardware that can modify itself like a brain does, but I think it is possible to accomplish that with coding.
Sure, but now you're talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren't just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they're powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body's other systems, and so on. These aren't just minor factors, they're central parts of how your brain works.
Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the "neural networks" we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.
It's simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.
Thanks for putting it at a scale I can grok. If we could create such a device it would just be a literal (digital) brain.
Performance suffers. Basically we don't have the computing power to scale the sw to the perf levels of the human brain.
Yes we do. FPGAs and memristors can both recreate those effects at the hardware level. The problem is scaling them and their necessary number of interconnections to the number of neurons in the human brain, on top of getting their base wiring and connections close to how our genetics build and wires our base brains.
First, we donāt understand our own neurons enough to model them.
AIās āneuronā or node is a math equation that takes a numeric input with a variable āweightā that affects the output. An actual neuron a cell with something like 6000 synaptic connections each and 600 trillion synapses total. How do you simulate that? Iād argue the magic of AI is how much more efficient it is comparatively with only 176 billion parameters in GPT4.
Theyāre two fundamentally different systems and so is the resulting knowledge. AI doesnāt need to learn like a baby, because the model is the brain. The magic of our neurons is their plasticity and our ability to freely move around in this world and be creative. AI is just a model of what itās been fed, so how do you get new ideas? But it seems that with LLMs, the more data and parameters, the more emergent abilities. So we just need to scale it up and eventually we can raise the.
AI does pretty amazing and bizarre things today we donāt understand, and they are already using giant expensive server farms to do it. AI is super compute heavy and require a ton of energy to run. So, the cost is a rate limiting the scale of AI.
There are also issues related to how to get more data. Generative AI is already everywhere and what good s is it to train on its own shit? Also, how do you ethically or legally get that data? Does that data violate our right to privacy?
Finally, I think AI actually possess an intelligence with an ability to reason, like us. But itās fundamentally a different form of intelligence.
I mainly disagree with the final statement on the basis that the LLMs are more advanced predictive text algorithms. The way they've been set up with a chatbox where you're interacting directly with something that attempts human-like responses, gives off the misconception that the thing you're talking to is more intelligent than it actually is. It gives off a strong appearance of intelligence but at the end of the day, it predicts the next word in a sentence based on what was said previously but it doesn't do that good job of comprehending what exactly it's telling you. It's very confident when it gives responses which also means when it's wrong, it's very confidently delivering the incorrect response.
Talk to anyone who consumes Fox News daily and youāll get incorrect predictive text generated quite confidently. You may also deny them their intelligence and lack of humanity with the fallacies they uphold.
I also think intelligence is a gradientāis an ant intelligent? What about a dog? Chimp? Who gets to draw the line?
It very may be a very complex predictive text generator that hallucinates but Iām concerned that it minimizes its capabilities for better or worseāIts ability to maintain context and has enough plasticity to reason and change its response points to something more, even if weāre at an early stage.
What you're alluding to is the Turing test and it hasn't been proven that any LLM would pass it. At this moment, there are people who have failed the inverse Turing test, being able to acerrtain whether what they're speaking to is a machine or human. The latter can be done and has been done by things less complex than LLMs and isn't proof of an LLMs capabilities over more rudimentary chatbots.
You're also suggesting that it minimises the complexity of its outputs. My determination is that what we're getting is the limit of what it can achieve. You'd have to prove that any allusion to higher intelligence can't be attributed to coercion by the user or it's just hallucinating based on imitating artificial intelligence from media.
There are elements of the model that are very fascinating like how it organises language into these contextual buckets but this is still a predictive model. Understanding that certain words appear near each other in certain contexts is hardly intelligence, it's a sophisticated machine learning algorithm.
All fair points, and I donāt deny predictive text generation is at the core of whatās happening. I think itās a fair statement that most people hear āpredictive textā and think itās like the suggested words in a text message, which itās more than that.
I also donāt think Turing Tests are particularly useful long term because humans are so fallible. We too hallucinate all the time with our convictions based on false memories. Getting an AI to have what seems like an emotional response or show uncertainty or confusion in a Turing test is a great way to trick people.
The algorithm is already a black box as is the mechanics of our own intelligence. We have no idea where the ceiling is for this technology yet. This debate quickly goes into the ontological and epistemological discussion about what it means to be intelligentā¦if the AI predictive text generation is complex enough where you simply cannot tell a difference, then is there a meaningful difference? What if we are just insanely complex algorithms?
I also donāt trust that what the market sees in AI products is indicative of the current limits. AGI isnāt here yet, but LLMs are a scary big step in that direction.
Pragmatically, I will maintain that AI is a different form of intelligence because I think it shortcuts to better discussions around policy and how we want this tech in our lives. I would gladly welcome the news that tells me Iām wrong.
With current technology, a supercomputer capable of that would be absolutely gigantic, immobile, and have an insane power draw. How're you going to raise a building like a human?
Currently, a mouse brain is about the limit of what we can do. https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30067-2
https://alleninstitute.org/news/scientists-recreated-part-of-the-mouse-brain-on-a-computer-and-showed-it-movies/
There's actually a Robert Miles video on this very question.
https://youtu.be/eaYIU6YXr3w
Was wondering if Robert Miles - Children had a music video with a lot of foresight.
https://youtu.be/DvyCbevQbtI
Hardware limitations. A model that big would require millions of video cards, thousands of terabytes of storage, and hundreds of terabytes of ram.
This is also where AI ethics plays into whether such a model should exist in the first place. People are really scared of AI but they donāt know that ethics standards are being enforced at the top level.
Edit: get Elon Musk on the phone, heās deranged enough to spend that much money on something like this while ignoring the ethical and moral implications /s
You joke but he'd probably traumatize a synthetic intelligence enough that it'd think 4chan user behavior is the baseline human standard
Simple answer: We don't have any computer to run that on. While I don't see any absolute limitations ruling out that approach... The human brain seems to have hundreds or thousands of trillions of connections. With analog electrical impulses and chemistry. That's still sci-fi and even the largest supercomputers can't do it as of today. I think scientists already did it for smaller brains like those from flies(?), so the concept should work.
And then there is the question what are you going to do with it. You can't just kill a human, freeze the brain, slice it and then digitize it by looking at a microscope a trillion times. So you have to make it learn from ground up. And this requires a connection to a body. So you also need to simulate a whole body and the world it's in on top. To make it learn anything and not just activate random neurons. So that's going to be sci-fi (like the Matrix) for the near and mid future.
A programmer's pet peeve is someone who says "why can't you just...".
But the fundamental problem with your plan, assuming it's possible at all - it's been said that if the brain were simple enough for us to understand then we'd be too simple to understand it - is that you're going to want to make your AI at least as smart as someone who's 30-40 years old, which by definition would take 30-40 years.
AI is a very slow learner still. The base OS for humans is really advanced with hormones biases built in and a initial structure connected to input and outputs.
Sure, it's possible but we're not there yet. It could be still 10-100 years until we manage to get a good one, depending on how we don't know yet.
Didn't they just discover a new brain component recently?
I think this is what I was thinking of
You wouldn't need to raise it as a baby.
The reason that humans come out as babies in the first place is because if we came out with fully developed brains, our heads would be crushed through the birth canal and the mother would probably die. Therefore, our brains have to mature as we get older which of course takes decades.
Growing up is a biological imperative.
In terms of artificial intelligence or large language models, there would be no need to actually grow in physical size.
Which solidifies the point a person already made here is that it would be a fundamentally different kind of intelligence one that simply needs data input And will not need the ability to grow up as a child would.
You can't raise it like a human because is not a human. Are you going to put it the size of baby? Gonna pump it with hormones that change its structure when it becomes a teen?
Learning models operate like neurons in that they make connections based on experiences (data). But that's like saying a microwave works like a chef in that it heats up food. We can't build a microwave that can run a kitchen, design a menu, take a bump in the walk-in, and fire off dishes the way a chef will.
Creating an accurate neuron simulation would probably require much more advanced AI than we already have. Like, real AI, not this piddly, piecemeal shit we have now.
Youāre looking at this backwards. Weād need better AI to even start trying to simulate neurons accurately. Theyāre far more complex.
Currently, AI is capable of analyzing basic chemical and cellular interactions. Itās ok at it.
Actually, we've got some pretty sophisticated models of neurons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project?wprov=sfla1
See my other comment for an example of how little we truly understand about neurons.
Modeling neurons and simulating them with AI are very different things. And, as you say, we still know very little about neurons and the nervous system and the brain itself. How, then, could we even attempt to train an AI to work accurately?
We do have some pretty sophisticated models of neurons, and there are persistent theories (2015 was earliest I found in a quick search) that brains use some quantum physics, in particular Quantum Entanglement, to operate.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-brains-quantum.html
In which case, hardware has a very long way to go before we can do that at scale.
It's not a terrible idea by any means. It's pretty hard to do, though. Check out the Blue Brain Project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project?wprov=sfla1
ETA: not to mention the brain is a heck of a lot more than a collection of neurons. Other commenters pointed out how we just discovered a new kind of brain cell - the brain is filled with so many different types of neurons (e.g. pyramidal, Purkinje, dopamine-based, myelinated, unmyelinated, internet Ron's, etc.). Then there's an entire class of "neuron support" cells called neuralgia. This includes oligodendrocytes (and Schwann cells), microglia, satellite cells, and most importantly, astrocytes. These star-shaped cells can have a huge impact on how neurons communicate by uptaking neurotransmitters and other mechanisms.
Here's more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_synapse?wprov=sfla1
Just some thoughts:
Current LLMs (chat AIs) are "frozen brains." (Over-)Simplified, the synapses on the AI's input neurons are given the 2048 prior words (the "context") and the AI's output synapses mean a different word each, so the synapse that lights up most strongly is the next word the AI will say. Then the picked word is added to the "context" and the neural network is executed once more for the next next word.
Coming up with the weights of the synapses takes insane effort (run millions of books through the "context" and look if the AI t predicts the next word correctly, if not, change a random synapse). Afaik, GPT-4 was trained on more than 2000 NVidia A100 GPUs for somewhere around 4 to 7 months, I think they mentioned paying for 7.5 Megawatt hours.
If you had a super computer that could keep running the AI with live training, the AI's ability to string up words would likely, and quickly, degrade into incoherence because it would just ingest and repeat whatever went into it. Existing biological brains have these complex mechanisms of distilling experiences and evaluating them in terms of usefulness/success of their own actions.
.
I think that foundation, that part that makes biological brains put the action/consequence in the foreground of the learning experience, rather than just ingesting, is what eludes us. Perhaps at some future point in time, we could take the initial brain structure that grows in a human as the seed for an AI (but I guess then we'd likely have to simulate all the highly complex traits of real neurons, including mixed chemical and electrical signaling and possibly even quantum-level effects that have been theorized).
We didn't know which things mechanisms in a nuron are important, and we don't have anywhere near the computing power to model all of them. We have guesses as to what's important, and that's what a lot of modern AI is built on. But because computers have different strengths and weaknesses, we can't simulate a whole human brain yet.
The one if the big reason that people are brushing over is latency. You can have a billion super computers simulator something but the latency between them will prevent you from simulating at a reasonable speed an interconnected system like a bunch of neurons.
i think that's roughly exactly what happened - i think the new neural nets have 80 billion neurons which is a rough estimate of what a human brain has
the way they work is wildly different of course
What "new neural nets have 80 billion neurons"? Examples?
i read somewhere a little while ago that some of the LLMs have about that number
https://www.google.com/search?q=chat+gpt+how+many+neurons