Slashdot Mirror


Artificial Brain '10 Years Away'

SpuriousLogic writes "A detailed, functional artificial human brain can be built within the next 10 years, a leading scientist has claimed. Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project, has already built elements of a rat brain. He told the TED global conference in Oxford that a synthetic human brain would be of particular use finding treatments for mental illnesses. Around two billion people are thought to suffer some kind of brain impairment, he said. 'It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years,' he said."

19 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. don't believe it by timpdx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe we can build the *equivalent* of a human brain (number of neural connections in software, silicon or combination), but we don't even know how the thing functionally works as it is. How are we going to model it?

    1. Re:don't believe it by setagllib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of what makes a brain's connections is genetic, and a lot is learned. It wouldn't even begin to function without the genetic component, and it wouldn't survive long or perform any useful task without the learned component. Getting the genetic part right is incredibly difficult (it took evolution millions of years before any organisms could just walk), and fundamentally necessary to get any use out of the brain.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    2. Re:don't believe it by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the heck are you talking about? None of this is metaphysical, it's theoretically possible with good enough imaging tools to make a 1:1 copy.

    3. Re:don't believe it by fuzzix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't forget the unexplained brain features that haven't been documented because science can't explain them - like twins feeling what the other feels and people with transplanted organs perceiving memories of the donor.

      Explain?! It hasn't even been observed yet.

      You might as well say "But your precious science has yet to explain psychic powers and zombies!"

    4. Re:don't believe it by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sometimes wonder though, if the component that gives intelligence is not necessarily that complicated. We seem very capable of adapting to new, abstract input, and this indicates to me that intelligence might be a generic mechanism. Allot of organisms are capable of learning, not just us. That's intelligence as far as I see.

      My personal hypothesis (for what it's worth) is that what we will be able to build will be intelligent, but not necessarily very human. Humans have a genetic component, which includes instincts such as social behavior, and I think intelligence is a layer on top of this that helps us achieve the goals these instincts sets out for us. In the end, the instincts dictate what outcome appears good and bad, and reinforces the patterns of behavior that led to those outcomes.

      It might be that once we set out to explore these underlying insticts, and how to replicate them in a brain like system, they might also prove to be surprisingly simple:

      • A smile from a human = good outcome (social) - possible by image analysis
      • Aggressive sounds from a human looking at you (that is stronger than you) = bad outcome - possible by sound/image analysis
      • Spider or snake-like shape near you = bad outcome - image analysis
      • Smell of fruit = good outcome - chemical analysis of air

      Probably it will be somewhat more complex than this, but I think we might be surprised once we get there. We might also find that tweaking instincts will make the brains, and their attached bodies, be human like or very very different. We might be able to create a brain for whom life is ALL about good feedback from humans (these creatures already live amongst us :p), or ones that are merciless killing machines.

      I think no field will yield more knowledge and understanding of ourselves than the brain-builders in the decades to come.

    5. Re:don't believe it by Gerafix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personal anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. We can imitate many things without fully understanding the natural process, to think otherwise is pure delusion.

    6. Re:don't believe it by wytcld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's theoretically possible with good enough imaging tools to make a 1:1 copy.

      Several problems with that:

      - When you're at the quantum level, you can't image it without changing it.
      - Okay, so you've changed it. You're after general structure not the details of the instant? But what if the old AI guys were right, and the essence of being a mind is in the programming, not the hardware? Shuffling your image of the quantum-level stuff may mean you get a good image of the hardware, and miss getting a functional program for it entirely.
      - Where are you going to store your image? This is not trivial. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any other physical system known. Is there enough storage capacity on the planet to store the complete image details for one moment's slice of one human brain?
      - Once you store something that complex, how in heck are you going to fabricate a duplicate? Over what span of time, with what tools, can you build to that spec?

      Research projects like this are betting that with some drastic simplification you can build something roughly like a human brain, and that this roughest approximation will have useful parallels in operation. But the human brain isn't just electron firings. It's chemical cascades, electromagnetic fields, processing not just across synapses but within them, and quite possibly processing on the quantum level.

      He's going to build something like that? In ten years? Really?

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  2. Seems ethically dodgy... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be pretty concerned about the ethics of experimenting on an artficial brain complex enough to reasonably simulate a human one. "Human rights" aren't terribly well grounded, theoretically; but to the degree that they are, mental complexity seems to be a vital factor(given that we don't generally execute retarded people, it isn't the only one, but it is a big one). Being made of meat isn't obviously a salient factor, nor is being born to human parents.

    An artificial brain of that complexity would be, in effect, a moral person. If you are willing to experiment on one, you might as well just use hobos and orphans and not have to wait a decade for fancy computers(though a simulation would have the huge advantage of read system state out of memory, no mucking around with FMRIs and stuff).

    1. Re:Seems ethically dodgy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, we are just "atoms". Ever heard of emergent properties?

    2. Re:Seems ethically dodgy... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I 100% agree with the need to protect sapient rights regardless of species or construction material you do have to approach this one slightly differently since the stakes are different.

      If I was a silicon brain you could just back me up. As long as you disabled my pain processors you could do whatever you wanted to me. I would even be proud to be helping so many of my organic cousins at nothing but inconvenience. And since I'm a silicon brain with no where to go yet I wouldn't really have anything else to do except be retarded or schizophrenic from time to time.

    3. Re:Seems ethically dodgy... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are assuming that a computer program of that nature would be, for some reason, not conscious or thinking like a person. Yet why should you differentiate between a computer program and a physical neurons 'n glial cells, etc? I see no basis for doing so, as the matter itself, inert, is nothing. We only get a "person" when that matter if functioning. Why shouldn't consciousness, personhood, simply be the computational states and not the matter itself? It's true there are physical differences between a computer program and brain (for example, the synaptic gaps) but these could be simulated as well.

      I have no reason to believe that consciousness/personhood is anything but substrate neutral. Man, machine, machine-man, or computer program, any of these can potentially be conscious. Unless you want to postulate silly metaphysical things such as souls, which are vague and poorly defined--and unnecessary, for a soul does not apparently hold that which makes us what we are, that is, our memories or inclinations.

    4. Re:Seems ethically dodgy... by BillyBlaze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science does ignore things outside of the universe, but amazingly enough, everything that matters is, by definition, inside it.

      In other words, suppose there is a soul. If we can still make a brain simulator that acts conscious, then it doesn't really matter, because it had no observable effect. If, because humans have souls and computers don't, we can't make a conscious brain simulator, then the soul has an observable effect, and can be reasoned about with science. Now, in the first case, you might say that the brain simulator acts conscious but isn't. It would be a lot like saying people with a different skin color act conscious but aren't, though - not morally defensible.

      Religions are not dualist because their ability to reason without evidence has allowed them to see some great truth that science has missed. They're dualist because they were conceived before we came to the great realization that the behavior of living things emerges from the physical laws.

    5. Re:Seems ethically dodgy... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My comment about anesthesia was that a simulation of a thing, is *not* the thing in question it's hard for naive physicalists to grasp,

      What you fail to see is that conciousness is not a physical thing. Your physicalist rules which apply to thing (a simulation of X is not an X) therefore do not apply to conciousness. Perhaps if you dould define conciousness, the debate might become easier. I suspect you can't because noone has so far.

      "I think, therefore I am". That's all you really know. You can't tell that anyone else around you is really real. They appear "concious" and so you choose to call them "concious". You deduce that purely by ovserving their behaviour and actions: you observe no internal process. So why can't a machine be deemed concious by the same rules?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. 10 years? by Saija · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been listening "in 10 years we'll have X awesome technology", but time come and go and nothing has changed, so, i'll be expecting this artificial brain so i could drive my flying car(you know, that 3D driving thingie) to arrive at the entrance of the spacial elevator so i could bang some lunar chicks.
    Btw 10 years and i still have some bad english

    --
    Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
    1. Re:10 years? by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been listening "in 10 years we'll have X awesome technology", but time come and go and nothing has changed, so, i'll be expecting this artificial brain so i could drive my flying car(you know, that 3D driving thingie) to arrive at the entrance of the spacial elevator so i could bang some lunar chicks.

      Not everything predicted has come true, to be sure. But think about it: you are leaving a post on a computer located hundreds or thousands of miles away, along with hundreds of other people, and I, hundreds or thousands of miles away, am replying. Neither of us pays much at all for this service, which is nearly ubiquitous.

      You can casually watch television shows on demand, on your phone. Which, BTW, is roughly analogous to the pocket communicators on the original series of "Star Trek", except that they couldn't watch shows or take video/pictures or blog or play solitaire on them.

      There is sufficient storage in your computer to track every single man, woman, and child on earth, many times over. The price of photovoltaic solar cells has followed a consistent, exponential drop in price (half price every 5-ish years) and is now close to parity with coal.

      Cars are many, many, many times safer than they used to be - most accidents now result in basically no significant injuries, even when the car is totalled, thanks to crumple zones. Flat panel TVs are commonplace, with resolutions that rival photographic paper. Flexbile, folding displays are available, if (still) expensive.

      I'm not sure what kind of changes you would expect, but these are just a few of the awesome technologies that I've seen unfold in my 30-something years. I mean, what do you want?!?!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  4. Yeah. RIght. by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 10 years we will have artificial brain, in 50 we will have fusion. In 20 we will have true AI and cyborg. And in 5 years the date estimate for the 3 above will probably not have changed by much (I say probably as we could do leap and bound forward, but at the moment I don't see that as probable).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Yeah. RIght. by Anpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is different from AI, and is coming from someone whose expertise on the subject is demonstrable. He's not talking about AI, he's talking about simulating all of the tissue in a human brain and providing it with stimuli to determine reactions.

      He's not saying it'll necessarily be a good ol' buddy ol' pal right off the bat. Probably not. Probably won't even be capable of simple arithmetic for years. On the other hand, we could simulate things like lesions effecting far away parts of the brain, various known "paths" that signals travel in the brain and ways to alter those paths or correct flaws, etc.

      As well, we could simulate the effect of various drugs on large-scale phenomena in the brain to help try and understand (a.) what a drug will do before it undergoes testing, and (b.) why exactly it is that makes these drugs work so well. Both questions are currently unanswerable. We know what a drug does, but rarely do we understand the full extent of why a particular drug helps certain conditions.

  5. Re:Still Waiting on Cancer Cure by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cancer cures have been pretty underwhelming; but 5 and 10 year survival rates for many flavors of cancer have been heading steadily in the right direction. The efficacy of pain control, anti-emetics, and other ancillary stuff has seen some improvement as well(unsexy; but not puking your guts up, as much, during treatment is definitely worth something). Also, there has been some interesting work in cancer prevention which is even better. The HPV vaccines, for instance, show a great deal of promise in preventing a substantial percentage of cervical, anal, and penile cancers, while reductions in smoking should reduce lung cancer incidence rather nicely.

    Talk is generally PR hype; but sometimes the PR department is attached to people who do real work.

  6. If only we understood the architecture by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It probably is within reach to build a hardware equivalent of a human brain. We don't know how to architect it, but building enough custom ICs and interconnecting them is probably within reach. The right architecture for simulating neurons probably involves some huge number of fast processors with limited memory, like a graphics board.

    I'm encouraged that this guy is trying to model a mouse brain. About twenty years ago, I was at a seminar by Rod Brooks. He was talking about trying to jump from insect-level AI, where he'd made some progress, to human-level AI. I asked him why he was trying to make such a big jump; a mouse brain might be within reach. He said "Because I don't want to go down in history as the person who created the world's greatest robot mouse". So instead, Brooks did Cog, a stationary robot with head and arms which tries to fake acting human and didn't really lead anywhere. Taking a smaller step might work better.

    Reaching for mouse-level AI is promising. Mice and humans have about 85% DNA commonality. All the mammals seem to have have roughly similar brain components, although the size ratios of the different sections vary widely. Humans have about 1000x the brain mass of a mouse. So if we can get a solid simulation of a mouse brain, it may be mostly a scaleup from there.

    The classic mistake in AI is that someone comes up with a reasonable idea, and then thinks they're one step from human-level AI. That's approaching the problem as if it were easy. Fifty years in, we can now conclude it is hard. So taking smaller bites is indicated.

    When we build an artificial brain, it will be rack-mounted in 19 inch racks.