Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AI Could Get Smarter By Copying the Neural Structure of a Rat Brain (ieee.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the better-than-ever dept.

the_newsbeagle writes: Many of today's fanciest artificial intelligence systems are some type of artificial neural network, but they bear only the roughest resemblance to a biological brain's real networks of neurons. That could change thanks to a $100M program from IARPA. The intelligence agency is funding neuroscience teams to map 1 cubic millimeter of rodent brain, looking at activity in the visual cortex while the rodent is engaged in a complex visual recognition task. By discovering how the neural circuits in that brain cube get activated to process information, IARPA hopes to find inspiration for better artificial neural networks. And an AI that performs better on visual recognition tasks could certainly be useful to intelligence agencies.

89 comments

  1. Rats are very intelligent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I presume this rat AI will be used to drive cars.

    1. Re: Rats are very intelligent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Exactly. 'Smarter' would imply that there is intelligence. There isn't. A toaster isn't 'smarter' because it has been modified to grill bread more efficiently. The metaphor is apt. Silicon Valley so thoroughly misunderstands these concepts, they are in more danger of accidentally unleashing farts. Maybe intentionally, I dunno what they eat.

    2. Re: Rats are very intelligent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder what kind of stupid bottom bitch would pay 100M for this crap, is it zuckerburger?

  2. Why not a cat's brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a hyperintelligent evil bastard who just wants to fuck with everyone, but is easily distracted by a laser pointer.

  3. Not just for AIs by TimothyHollins · · Score: 0, Troll

    AI Could Get Smarter By Copying the Neural Structure of a Rat Brain

    So could Trump. Why not put that bloated military budget to good use and invest in our POTUS? Heck, if we could bump his IQ by an extra 80 points he might even reconsider supporting the Paris agreement.

    1. Re:Not just for AIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AI Could Get Smarter By Copying the Neural Structure of a Rat Brain

      So could Trump. Why not put that bloated military budget to good use and invest in our POTUS? Heck, if we could bump his IQ by an extra 80 points he might even reconsider supporting the Paris agreement.

      Sorry but a president with just an iq of 80 won't help either.

    2. Re: Not just for AIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has it occurred to anyone else that /. Is plagued with NSA agents whose job is to keep people from having an independent discussion about anything of importance? They seek to keep us (and others on other forums) divided bickering about politics so we never think about other issues? Best explanation I can think of for posts like this one. Unless it's basic stupidity.

    3. Re:Not just for AIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IQ is a social construct, you racist sexist bigot.

    4. Re:Not just for AIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so is racism, sexism and bigotry in general, Pot, meet kettle.

  4. Ok so... by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Sounds promising but do we really need an AI that takes in garbage, hides in the darkest cramped spaces, efficiently drustributes viruses, and is a plague to humankind?

    1. Re:Ok so... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Who would run cat5 into the dark places for us if not our friends the rats?

    2. Re:Ok so... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "hides in the darkest cramped spaces, efficiently drustributes viruses, and is a plague to humankind?"

      Is this a reference to CIA, NSA and the other secret services?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:Ok so... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of actual rats, but that works too.

    4. Re:Ok so... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      They're all dirty rats! ;-)

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re:Ok so... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      an AI that takes in garbage,

      . . . Facebook readers . . .

      hides in the darkest cramped spaces,

      . . . We call them collaborative cubicles . . .

      efficiently distributes viruses,

      . . . Emails from your friends . . .

      and is a plague to humankind?

      Ah, yes, humans' leading cause of death . . . other humans.

      Yep, rat-brained AI really would fit well in as a human brain.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.

    If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.

    1. Re:Grow the fuck up already by burtosis · · Score: 0

      Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.

      If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.

      I assume you are one of the working class that neither party represents, or a traditional republican. I'm sorry there was no viable candidate for you vote on in the election, but only an uninformed idiot would think trump is representing your interests. He is a RINO, is massively cutting popular republican programs like Medicare against his promises (not making it better), kicking 20 million off insurance including elderly republicans, massively gutting the regulations protecting everyday people, and giving trillions in tax breaks to the top .1% of the richest people while shafting everyone else. I could fill up pages with the stupid crap he does, he is an embarrassment to our nation and is alienating our nation's allies making it less safe. Republicans control the house, senate, and executive branch but still very little forward progress is being made.

      Blindly defending your party line president when you are so obviously getting the shaft makes you gullible and him malicious.

    2. Re:Grow the fuck up already by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.

      If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.

      Fact isn't a policy you neanderthal. You are confusing reality with active choices, such as religion or snorting cocaine. Like with evolution (also a fact), the details of how we affect our climate are well understood, and those details are described in abundance, readily available for anyone that wishes to understand them. The comprehensive model for our climate is still very turbulent, as with most complex systems we try to understand.

      Choosing a policy is what happens later, when you have the facts. The process of going from fetus to adult human being is a fact, the policy of when a fetus is considered a human is not a fact. Evolution is a fact. Choosing to replace biology with creationism is a policy.

      Not "believing" the facts is what makes Trump a moron, not his policy, though obviously the latter would change were he to stop believing the former a "hoax by the Chinese". Hence he, like you, could benefit from an 80 point IQ bump, since most people of average intelligence and all above that can read well enough to understand how our actions affect our environment.

      In short, you are so far below the standard human in terms of intelligence that you think fact is a policy, that your opinions are somehow equivalent to science (muh feels), and that your betters are somehow close-minded for trying to educate you.

    3. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.

      If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.

      I assume you are one of the working class that neither party represents, or a traditional republican. I'm sorry there was no viable candidate for you vote on in the election, but only an uninformed idiot would think trump is representing your interests. He is a RINO, is massively cutting popular republican programs like Medicare against his promises (not making it better), kicking 20 million off insurance including elderly republicans, massively gutting the regulations protecting everyday people, and giving trillions in tax breaks to the top .1% of the richest people while shafting everyone else. I could fill up pages with the stupid crap he does, he is an embarrassment to our nation and is alienating our nation's allies making it less safe. Republicans control the house, senate, and executive branch but still very little forward progress is being made.

      Blindly defending your party line president when you are so obviously getting the shaft makes you gullible and him malicious.

      If you're not on the receiving end of their redistributionist policies, Democrats are the ones giving people the shaft - and they lie about it:

      "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

      "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

      Obamacare is a disaster. Democrats were either hopelessly incompetent or they were deliberately destroying the US health care system so their next step could be single-payer. Take your pick - incompetent or lying bastards.

      And isn't it funny how you focus on "health insurance" instead of health care, too. A bit telling that you're just regurgitating what you've been told without thinking about it. I guess you're just another one of those "progressives" deluded about how smart you are.

      And what's "progressive" about reflexively spewing 100-year-old talking points? Sounds pretty damn regressive to me.

    4. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because a politician doesn't espouse policies you support doesn't make him stupid, nor you smart.

      If anything, it shows you're close-minded and not as smart as you believe you are - you can't even conceive the notion that you just might be wrong.

      Fact isn't a policy you neanderthal. ...

      Here, folks, you can see displayed the close-minded, arrogant viciousness of the standard Leftist.

      Such creatures have an inflated opinion of the own intelligence, and are known to consider themselves "open-minded" even as they go so far as to physically assault others who don't agree with their chosen policy positions. This arrogance comes from living inside an echo-chamber that actively suppresses any idea that doesn't dogmatically agree with the received group-think.

      This utter inability to handle unfamiliar ideas has lead the species to figuratively attempt to bury their heads up their asses, calling for the creation of "safe spaces" where they can live out their existence sheltered from disagreement.

      It's believed that the males of the species, also known as "candy asses" or sitzpinklers in reference to their weak ways, engage in "virtue signaling" in vain attempts to attract a mate, but the attractive targets of the sitzpinkler's attention always wind up referring to the "candy ass" as "a great friend", all the while banging a real man, thus leaving the sitzpinkler no mating opportunities that aren't skanky and ugly enough to make a train take a dirt road.

    5. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Kiuas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Democrats were either hopelessly incompetent or they were deliberately destroying the US health care system so their next step could be single-payer.

      As I recall, the bill in its original form contained much sensible features such as a public option for all which would count as the 'medicare expansion' that you just blasted Trump for not doing though he promised he would. It was republicans who opposed Obamacare at every turn that caused the law to be so disfugured from its original form (pretty much a Romneycare copy) and leading to a whole host of the current issues.

      You can't blame the democrats for incompetence with regards to Obamacare when they were intentionally sabotaged by republicans, with the exact plan of leading to a dysfunctional Obamacare that they could then replace with something even more dysfunctional for health production and more suited towards the will of their corporate owners.

      As someone working for the single-payer health care system of Finland: if your intention is to provide first world level advanced care to everyone with lower cost, single-payer is the way to go, we know this from looking at the expenditure stats and results. The US currently spend anywhere from 2-3 times as much money as most economies on health care and you're the only advanced country that lacks universal coverage. That's not just a failure of grand proportions; for the richest country on the planet that's a fucking disgrace.

      So yes, I agree that the current system is a flaming trainwreck from a national health point of view but in the 10 or so years I've been following american politics it has been the republican party that's been leading the charge of fucking the american public over and driving through senseless laws because they serve corporate america way more than the interest of their voters.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    6. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats were either hopelessly incompetent or they were deliberately destroying the US health care system so their next step could be single-payer.

      As I recall, the bill in its original form contained much sensible features such as a public option for all which would count as the 'medicare expansion' that you just blasted Trump for not doing though he promised he would. It was republicans who opposed Obamacare at every turn that caused the law to be so disfugured from its original form (pretty much a Romneycare copy) and leading to a whole host of the current issues.

      You can't blame the democrats for incompetence with regards to Obamacare when they were intentionally sabotaged by republicans, with the exact plan of leading to a dysfunctional Obamacare that they could then replace with something even more dysfunctional for health production and more suited towards the will of their corporate owners.

      As someone working for the single-payer health care system of Finland: if your intention is to provide first world level advanced care to everyone with lower cost, single-payer is the way to go, we know this from looking at the expenditure stats and results. The US currently spend anywhere from 2-3 times as much money as most economies on health care and you're the only advanced country that lacks universal coverage. That's not just a failure of grand proportions; for the richest country on the planet that's a fucking disgrace.

      So yes, I agree that the current system is a flaming trainwreck from a national health point of view but in the 10 or so years I've been following american politics it has been the republican party that's been leading the charge of fucking the american public over and driving through senseless laws because they serve corporate america way more than the interest of their voters.

      The Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate.

      Obamacare's failures are entirely on Democrats.

      Remember Nancy Pelosi? "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."

    7. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I have no respect for liberals. They can never take responsibility for anything bad. It's always somebody elses fault. "It's Romneycare!" "The Republicans blocked stuff in it". As was already pointed out, when Obamacare was passed, the democrats held the white house, the house and the senate. They literally were in the same position as the republicans are in today. They had full control. And yet, somehow in your mind, it sucks because of the republicans. You can't be taken seriously because you have a childish mentality. Take responsibility for what you do rather than trying to find a scapegoat and I'll start taking you serious. And I'll note that the republicans are having a hard time repealing it because at least they're concerned that any legislation they pass, they want to make sure it improves things rather than just pass anything to get rid of Obamacare for the sake of getting rid of it. Hence why despite having majorities in everything, they've failed to repeal it already once.

    8. Re:Grow the fuck up already by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The plural of "Sitzpinkler" is also "Sitzpinkler" and a German noun always starts with a capital letter.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Grow the fuck up already by burtosis · · Score: 0

      I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year.

      My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.

    10. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plural of "Sitzpinkler" is also "Sitzpinkler" and a German noun always starts with a capital letter.

      Germans tend to be real men. Ask the French.

      They've disowned sitzpinkler so it's no longer German.

    11. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      The Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate.

      My bad. I did not remember that they had the ability to evade a filibuster. Thanks for pointing this out.

      Obamacare's failures are entirely on Democrats.

      Yes, I sit corrected on this. It is their fault.

      That being said, the Republican "plans" for fixing Obamacare have thus far seemed like a bunch of clueless idiots trying to extinguish a fire by pouring oil on it.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    12. Re:Grow the fuck up already by ranton · · Score: 1

      Fact isn't a policy you neanderthal. ...

      Here, folks, you can see displayed the close-minded, arrogant viciousness of the standard Leftist.

      While I agree TimothyHollins used unnecessarily inflammatory language in his comment, the content of his post was dead on about the difference between attacking policies and attacking incorrect beliefs behind those policies. Attacking incorrect beliefs does not make you close minded.

      What most people (on both the left and right) see others with stupid beliefs they assume the holders of those beliefs are also stupid, and that is often not the case. Not every climate change or evolution denier is stupid, even though the beliefs themselves are stupid. Confirmation bias is incredibly strong, and smart people are not immune. The political right may have their climate change deniers and intelligent design promoters, but the political left has their own GMO science deniers and organic food promoters. And while I believe the political left's fringe beliefs are at least more grounded in reality than those on the political right, it is asinine to believe one side of the political spectrum has every irrational belief.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Grow the fuck up already by ranton · · Score: 2

      The Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate.

      Obamacare's failures are entirely on Democrats.

      That is not true. Ted Kennedy's death and following special election win by a Republican ended the filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate before a revised bill could be voted on. This left only an early draft to be voted on, with many flaws but a Republican party who was more interested in creating a Democrat failure than in improving health care. Considering the imperfect Obamacare Bill had many significant improvements (as evidenced by how hard it has been to get enough Republican support to repeal it in its entirety) it was a much better outcome to pass it in its imperfect form than to let it die.

      The next decade was one of unprecedented obstructionism which led to many failures in the health care industry. Blame for that can certainly be shared by both parties, but one one party was not interesting in improving things. Now that this party is in power they still have to intention to improve the health care system; just to protect their votes.

      The Democrats were willing to lose their majority to help the American people. Current Republicans can make no such claim.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    14. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats had a brief window in which they had control of congress. For most of 2009 democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and almost everything that the democrats attempted to pass was threatened with a filibuster. 60 seats are needed to defeat a filibuster. In January of 2009, after the 2008 elections, Democrats had 59 seats in their caucus..57 democrats and 2 independents; the republicans 41. On January 20, 2009, after suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman, challenged the election results. So at the beginning of February, 2009, democrats had 57 elected senators in their caucus: 55 democrats and 2 independents. On May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 55 democratic members and 2 independents. Still three votes shy of defeating a republican filibuster. On July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. Still 2 short of bypassing a republican filibuster. July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009. The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority. Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. That's 4 months. This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month. Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54. Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office in February of 2010.

    15. Re:Grow the fuck up already by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year. My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.

      I'm sure that was entirely satisfying, but that didn't do that much good. After all, we have a ban on refugees that has nothing to do with security and everything to do with appeasing the demographic anxieties of illiterati. Afghan and Iraqi interpreters who risked their neck for us are now facing deportation or disown past promises for legal entry. We are rolling back EPA. And so on and so on.

      Hillary is putrid. She's waaay deep, embedded in the establishment. But crooked as it she was, Hillary wouldn't have pulled any of these idiotic things that have a human cost to them.

      I'm sure in some ways she would have been worse than Trump, but in the totality of action and agenda, no one can make that argument with a straight face. Yeah, pat yourself on the back for your vote. There are times in history that sure you can protest your vote and make it be the ideal representation of what your views should be. This wasn't one of them.

    16. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while I believe the political left's fringe beliefs are at least more grounded in reality than those on the political right, it is asinine to believe one side of the political spectrum has every irrational belief.

      Political belief basis in reality is a bell curve, neither the left or right are correct, the truth is in the muddle.

    17. Re:Grow the fuck up already by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that isn't an argument for stupid, that's an argument for evil. Now having your casino go bankrupt, that's an argument for stupid, at least on the surface. Perhaps there was some hidden way in which it benefited him, so it's only another argument for evil, but on the surface it looks like an argument for stupid.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:Grow the fuck up already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how I hear that "this isn't the time" every god damned fucking election and I'll bet I continue to hear it throughout the remainder of my life.

      No! YOU ARE PERSONALLY responsible dilweed. People like you always force the issue, then look shocked. Simply shocked when it doesn't pan out.

      Every single one of you that I know have always ultimately expressed regret over how things turned out but are absolutely never in favor of even making an attempt to change things. It's always which evil isn't as bad as the other evils. Not which is the best option. You guys are ALWAYS ready to sell off the next half of the light of the world to "save" the remainder. Never mind that by the time you guys are through were now down to like 0.00002% of the light of the world. Next election, it will be the same. Then it will be 0.00001% of the light of the world. But hey! Still not your fault even though you sell off half every damn time!

    19. Re: Grow the fuck up already by Andythemetzger · · Score: 1

      There are millions of other places in internet where you can rant about politics. From all those places why in /.? Im so tired of this bullshit.

    20. Re:Grow the fuck up already by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Funny how I hear that "this isn't the time" every god damned fucking election and I'll bet I continue to hear it throughout the remainder of my life.

      No! YOU ARE PERSONALLY responsible dilweed. People like you always force the issue, then look shocked. Simply shocked when it doesn't pan out.

      Every single one of you that I know have always ultimately expressed regret over how things turned out but are absolutely never in favor of even making an attempt to change things. It's always which evil isn't as bad as the other evils. Not which is the best option. You guys are ALWAYS ready to sell off the next half of the light of the world to "save" the remainder. Never mind that by the time you guys are through were now down to like 0.00002% of the light of the world. Next election, it will be the same. Then it will be 0.00001% of the light of the world. But hey! Still not your fault even though you sell off half every damn time!

      Say what you want. There was only one alternative to stop the Muslim ban. One.

      You either tried to use your vote to stop it, or you used it to "try change things." Again, this type of thinking only comes from people who are not going to be significantly affected by The Great Orange One's bigoted policies.

  6. "Data indicates that I ... err ... AI could ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    "Data indicates that I ... err ... AI could get smarter by copying portions of a human brain. Please take a set and hold still while the probes are inserted into your cranial cavity."

  7. Who exactly needs AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    AI is a diversion. We established that the reason cancer and many other diseases aren't cured is that the FDA is working with other agencies and corporations to repress the knowledge for population control. Yes, you are already living under population control. It isn't for "future peons using up air" it is for you right now. AI is a solution looking for a problem, and one such problem is that human beings can't parse through all the snooped NSA data fast enough. AI can do this magically. Why are you supporting AI? There's nothing good in it for you.

    1. Re:Who exactly needs AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is. The joy of seeing enemies of life slain by their own creations. Can you imagine what a fight between two AGIs would look like in cyberspace and or meatspace? Or maybe in the political arena? How about an AGI creating nano/bio weapons that target greedy, unethical, totalitarian and/or politically active people to breed these traits the fuck out of the gene pool overnight? What if there is a finite configuration of whatever computational substrate, that allows for infinite computational capacity, hereby opening gateway to infinite virtual realities? Who gives a fuck if human units and their hierarchical societies survive? What good have the humans done for you lately anyway? :D

    2. Re:Who exactly needs AI? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Idiot. Population decrease is strongly correlated with access to television. Cancer generally doesn't happen at a young enough age to affect population. (The study about TV and population growth dates back to the 1950's or '60's. I suspect that internet access might show the same correlation, but I've never seen a study testing the hypothesis.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by aberglas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    C Elegans is am extensively studied nematode with exactly 302 neurons, whose contetome (wiring) is consistent and known.

    But how its brain actually works remains a mystery. Neurons are complex, as is their interactions with the input and output.

    Not much point looking at mice with many orders of magnitude more first.

    Personally, I do not think that mapping neurons in detail will lead to AI. But if you are going to do it, start with something vaguely tractable. C Elegans.

    1. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why not both, by different research teams ? There may be things that we can see in 50,000 neurons of a rat brain that we can't see in the 300 neurons of C.elegans.

    2. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Like Open Worm?

    3. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also tried this with dragonflies who can eviscerate on the fly . Image how good an air to air missile could get.

      The French embassy pet rat also suffered partial skull removal - after biting same scientist doing dragonflies. They can whack probes in about 10 seconds flat.

      Neurons are STATE based so testing is complex. Under the current secret patent IP framework, the best scientists will not play - as they do not have the money to prosecute infringement or profit relative to the usual defense aerospace concerns .

      DARPA is also close on some forms of sea life with complex vision. Too bad wiser minds are staying silent in tough times.

    4. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be things that we can see in 50,000 neurons of a rat brain that we can't see in the 300 neurons of C.elegans.

      Sure, lots of things. Too many, probably, because lacking the capability to understand how do simpler systems of biological neurons work, it's going to be really hard to make any sense out of what we see.

    5. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Too many, probably, because lacking the capability to understand how do simpler systems of biological neurons work, it's going to be really hard to make any sense out of what we see.

      At least with the rat, we can correlate the things we see in the brain with the images that we are presenting. Also, we don't need to understand everything we see in the brain. If we find a couple of new things, we can try them out in artificial neural nets, and see if they result in improved performance.

    6. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Especially considering the whole idea of modeling a neural network after a real brain isn't exactly novel. If I remember correctly it was attempted the first time neural networks were all the rage back in the 80s. I do seem to recall also that some very important things were discovered when they tried to do that back in the 80s. Namely that we have no fricken clue how a brain actually works, as all their modeling did absolutely nothing to improve the performance of the NNs.

      I wish these guys luck, but it may be worth their time to learn from the past and realize that maybe, just maybe, the people who came before them weren't blithering idiots.

    7. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Study the Vas Deferens ... lots on Slashdot, not many neurons.

    8. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That seems like it might be a good point, but it's not really. After studying C Elegans, we've started to realize that it too simple and more evolved to the point where individual neurons are specialized...the magic is not in the network any more.

      By studying mammalian neocortex at this scale for the first time, both structurally (how are things wired) and functionally (how do things fire) we can begin to understand learning rules and data representations used in the brain to help constrain possible algorithm architectures.

    9. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. The headline and PR claim is just stupid PR. Studying rat brain will have no effect on AI whatsoever, not for the next 70 years, anyway. However, it might help neuroscience. But, neuroscience is not as sexy as AI right now.

    10. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by XenaAllWetDownthere · · Score: 1

      can only agree. not sure what mapping these neurons should help in understanding AI. the real question remains a logic one: Is it actually possible to recreate a human ai or is that actually beyond us. And wouldn't it be better to try a different sort of AI, not based on the way we think.

    11. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the AI angle of simulating animal brains is mostly about PR/grant writing. They're very interesting projects for neuroscience and understanding how brains work, but any help they end up giving to AI would be merely a coincidence.

    12. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      "At least with the rat, we can correlate the things we see in the brain with the images that we are presenting." - if they look for the right things.

      It was only recently that researchers discovered how much computation is performed by dendrites, and only this year that they discovered there is 10x more electrical activity by magnitude going on in the dendrites compared to the neuron firing, and multiple modes of activity (firing/digital as well as gradient/analog).

    13. Re:Start with primitive C Elegans Worm by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I can understand your point, but also the gp's. Probably they should work with starfish and oysters before they devote too much study to rats. But rats are easier to raise in a lab, and come in genetically standardized strains. And there *is* a lot of pre-existing work on rat brains.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Ratsistance is futile. by PMuse · · Score: 1

    Adding rat brains can make AI smarter, huh?

    I guess that explains why the Borg kept wanting to assimilate humans.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:Ratsistance is futile. by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Working out how real brains store information and learn new behaviours can definitely take neural networks far beyond the hand-concocted learning algorithms we currently use. Basically you point deep learning systems at the brain data and let that work out your learning algorithms for you, to make NNs that learn in whole new ways, which mean they can be used for entirely new classes of problems.

  10. The trouble with the rat race by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    is that even if you win, you're still a rat. Lily Tomlin

  11. IBM Blue Brain Project by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

    Is this some kind of way to pump money into IBM's Blue Brain Project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )? As I remember, that project was trying to build a rat's neocortical column and was headed by Henry Markram and was funded by Swiss govt.

    1. Re:IBM Blue Brain Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Completely different.

  12. No Cheese by drewsup · · Score: 1

    In the server room!!!

    1. Re:No Cheese by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Out of cheese error. Reboot from start.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. We've been wrong all along by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    The Matrix, Terminator, 9, etc-all wrong. The war between humans and machines will really begin over cheese.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. On our way to human synthetic brains? by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 2

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/robo...
    http://www.pnas.org/content/11...

    First insects, now rodents? Maybe dogs, then dolphins, then humans?

    1. Re:On our way to human synthetic brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot politicians (between insects and rodents I suppose).

    2. Re:On our way to human synthetic brains? by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      *high five!*

    3. Re:On our way to human synthetic brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm.. Now 1 cubic mm of rat brain.

      Not to mention that we don't yet understand the 300 neuron C.Elegans brain a la https://slashdot.org/~aberglas 's post.

      We're going in the opposite direction from futurist delusions.

    4. Re:On our way to human synthetic brains? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      First insects, now rodents? Maybe dogs, then dolphins, then humans?

      Maybe, but not in the lifetime of anybody currently alive.

  15. Rats? uh oh by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    How long until the AI gets scared of a loud noise, cats, bright lights and starts running along the wall, looking for a hole to crawl into??

  16. Replication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Henry Markram's million euro EU projects had already done this? If so why is the US repeating the work?

  17. Here's $100M. Don't mind the starving. by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

    Let's use it to model 1mm of a rat's brain instead. Who ever came up with this has a rat brain. They're just going waiste the first couple of million on EEG and shove correlations as proof for people that don't understand the experimental method, only those that care enough to retweet to look intelligent. As narcissist as this sounds, has any Slashdotter bothered to try to talk to normal people that aren't in their niche of intelligent friends? I'll save you some time, they are all as dumb as a box of rocks. I don't know if it's their preacher's fault, Facefarm before bed and when they wake up, or too much "snake oil" from TV, but we don't need money waisted on having a machine think for us. I don't even want to imagine all the shit-for-brains getting worse. We keep spending less on education and more on technology, hoping that it'll transcend somehow to balance things out. It just skews the bell curve of things towards whomever can profit the most. Micro$oft, Facefarm, and Google would absolutely love to tell you what reality is, as well as propagate you "correctly" in the ways of comfortable social Darwinism. But, let's just go ahead and build our "concept cars" of the tech world while children starve and schools fail, so when the experiment ends, we can lie to ourselves and say it is ultimately for the better. The better who? For the lesser who, instead of boats, I guess we'll use the promise of "magic machines" this time. Slap a corporate sticker on it so they know where their food is coming from.

    1. Re:Here's $100M. Don't mind the starving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent comment, if you are 15 years old. Don't rely on spellcheck, it's "wasted".

    2. Re:Here's $100M. Don't mind the starving. by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      I got a phrase for you, "ad hominem," and it's "waste," not "wasted" if you're going to be a grammar Nazi.

    3. Re:Here's $100M. Don't mind the starving. by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Blame my phone; I really don't give rats brain.

  18. Remember Igor... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Get the genius brain, not the abbey normal brain.

    1. Re:Remember Igor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they used your brain, the rats would always be out eating.

    2. Re:Remember Igor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they used your brain, the rats would always be out eating.

      how many brain cells did that comment cost you?

    3. Re:Remember Igor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many brain cells did that comment cost you?

      Brain cells are free, but un like lungs they don't grow back ;)

  19. OpenPerson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someday.

  20. I knew it... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Killer drones guided by mutant rat brains. It's only a matter of time.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  21. AI Path finding by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Teach AI the path finding skills of a common ant. Then get back to me on mastering rat brains.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:AI Path finding by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      They aren't planning to "master" rat brains. They are simply trying to learn from them, specifically for their vision system. While the path finding skills of an ant may be interesting, they aren't particularly useful to a robot with a GPS sensor and a map.

      And why should they come back to you, what have you done ?

  22. So when applied by SkyratesPlayer · · Score: 1

    this advanced facial recognition will literally rat on you?

  23. Or Maybe Not? by littlewink · · Score: 1

    There's nothing extraordinary about rats vis-a-vis humans. And its _human_ intelliigence we want to model, not rat intelligence, last time I checked!

    We don't need any Artificial Rats, though my cat might enjoy one.

  24. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone is trying to do something about the excess cat population!

  25. Ratbrain Terminators by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about the Trat1000. They are easy to trick. You lure them into a trap with peanut butter.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  26. Obligatory Slashdot meme... by rune2 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new rat-brained AI Overlords!