astonished that anyone knowledgeable could claim that neural nets are (obviously) an “abstraction of neural processing” when we don’t yet know how brains work. if you don’t know how Y works you can’t really speak with certainty about whether X is an abstraction of Y. Period.https://twitter.com/tyrell_turing/status/1200072223299657728 …
-
all the "biological burden" (i.e.: non-functional ROS/RNS, 'aging', glucose and β-Hydroxybutyric acid constraints, synaptic fatigue, axial electrical resistivity, etc.) could probably be an advantage and what might really lead the human species to a real
#superintelligence.
i doubt it but then again we don’t know, misunderstood glial cells for a long time, etc. it would be arrogance to assume we are at the DNA manipulation stage when we are still basically doing botany with little causal understanding.
-
-
Couldn't agree more. In 1995, I asked a prof from Max-Planck institute, who was proudly describing his new single-cell patch clamp (E.Neher) tech, why he'd focus on single cell recordings while glia were all around.He said: Good question! but had no alternative.Same w/ NNs, today
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.