• Nalivai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    We would’ve bullied those nerds more for misusing the word neuron. It was cute at the time, but now they’re running around being all weird thinking that since they can pretend to read that one paper a better way to do one computer thing, it makes them experts in how brain works, just because there are similar words.

    • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I don’t think anyone who is aware enough is under the assumption that neural nets are a one to one replication of neurons. It’s more of a special type of graph. That said one could also represent a human brain as a special type of graph.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The amount of good computer people specialised in ml, who think this knowledge gives them understanding of human mind that even neurobioligists don’t posess is staggering. And depressing.

        • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Also not really the point I was arguing. It’s pretty clear NN are very different than a human brain. It does though give us some insight to minds more generally but I don’t think current networks are on the order of complexity necessary to really be generating abstractions similar to a human neural network. That said there’s strong arguments to be made about glimpses here and there like models spontaneously creating their own internal workspace like an inner monologue or quasi subconscious. To be clear I’m not saying it is aware or identical to a human mind but it’s interesting to see it self assemlble similar looking structures without any direct guidance.