I really don't think they can. I feel like if I rush a PR using AI, I can only just kinda hope the AI is good enough that my trust isn't misplaced. It becomes slightly less likely to be bad if you add a thorough AI review on top but it's just rolling the dice.
More than that, real neurons don’t behave anything like the ones we model in neural networks - real ones signal with pulses, in a manner where the timing seems as significant as the magnitude of the impulse. Typically simulated neural networks use continuous analog values instead of pulses and a sigmoid function to shape the output.
Basically, the “wiring” might be the same but nothing beyond that is.
- - -
Actually, I may have spoken too soon. Looking over the code this does look like it implements spikey activation, which is more similar to living neurons. You are correct they don’t have the original weights though - in as much as the concept maps to biology.
I am curious if this has a way to dynamically modify the weights as it runs - I consider that a major missing gap between real brains and computer simulated neural networks.
I feel like probably a graph of sigmoid or whatever weights of sufficient size can probably model a network of biological neurons signaling frequency and phase and magnitude.
Isnt there also a theory and some evidence that the connectome is not enough to model a brain. Based on the fact that butterlies connectome dissolves during metamorphosis to butterfly but it still remembers things from before that stage of life.
Butterflies dissolving is an urban legend. They don't dissolve. Caterpillars have wing stubs inside them.
Someone probably cut open a chrysalis and saw goop come out, so they assumed it was just a bag of goop. But goop would also come out of a cut open caterpillar, or a cut open butterfly, or a cut open human.
They do kind of dissolve; we have better imaging now and can watch.
What isn't true is that it completely dissolves. There are parts that don't and are part of the rescaffolding process. One of those bits that does not completely dissolve is a chunk of the brain; it is probably via this that memory persists through the metamorphosis.
Wing stubs are present from the beginning as well as you noted.
That says the butterflies have a back up mechanism, it doesn't say that connectomes are insufficient for modelling running neural processes.
We don't actually know what is sufficient for modelling neural processes until we do it. But we can't really do that until we figure out how to read all the connection strengths.
No, the nervous system is one of those things that don't fully dissolve. Partial info retention is perfectly consistent with partial connectome retention.
Had a similar experience getting a niche app running under wine. The bot had to bring in a different open source renderer, patch dlls, adapt a mapping tool from a different chip architecture to partly map and modify the binary, crazy stuff. Alternatives exist but are expensive, this got it working in an hour when doing it myself would probably be 2 weeks.
Last week I had Claude add support for aac audio to davinci resolve on Linux, just by patching the binary. It did almost exclusively with gdb and objdump, patching about 5 functions over an hour or two.
I only got it to the proof of concept stage. The patch adds aac but breaks flac support in the process. And it only works for aac in mp4 container files. But I’m sure with a bit of time we could make a patch which works everywhere and is additive only.
I say ‘we’ - I barely helped. Almost all the work was done by Claude.
Here’s Claude’s report, if anyone wants to build on this work:
"I only got it to proof of concept.... I'm sure with time"
this is AI psychosis. LLMs by design product plausible output -- it ALWAYS seems like you just need a little more time. That's why the junkies are up all night playing with these things, and yet the next industrial revolution has NOT arrived. if this is the singularity where is my clothes folding bot, my cold fusion, and my cure for all cancers?
Please do not post about things the bot almost did. Nobody cares. When you COMPLETE something with the bot you can post. The rest is delusions.
The proof of concept works. You can use aac audio in resolve on Linux. It hasn’t been polished or productised, but it’s demonstrably working. If I got to this point on my own, I’d be very satisfied that I could finish the job.
That would be a justifiable inference in that case. But you didn't get to this point on your own. You haven't learned the knowledge you would have learned getting to this point on your own. Claude didn't either; generally speaking, it doesn't learn. So it may be misleading to reason by analogy to the counterfactual where you had gotten to this point on your own. Claude may or may not be able to finish the job. You won't know until you try.
> Claude may or may not be able to finish the job. You won't know until you try.
Yes, it’s weak evidence. Not proof. That is why I was quite explicit about what it has and hasn’t accomplished.
In my time with it, Claude seems fine at finishing up projects. And I’ve done enough reverse engineering to have a reasonably firm understanding of the outstanding work. I predict that Claude will have no problem finishing this up with some more guidance and tokens. You can of course have your own opinion, but I think it’s a bit much to claim I’m suffering from ai psychosis for having this expectation of its capabilities.
Most big tech use LLMs to write most if not all of their code in current year. I have many negative things to say about it but if you think LLMs with a good harness can’t make anything that works you’re plain wrong. We’re shipping AI authored code to prod every day and it does the thing. Or maybe the psychosis goes so deep I’m just imagining all this and I’m actually unemployed
This isn’t “AI psychosis”. Stop this. Stop corrupting the definition of “psychosis” by pretending that “AI psychosis” can just be used as a descriptor for anyone that thinks that an LLM can do a thing that you don’t think it can. Any use of the term “AI psychosis” in all but the strictest sense is a huge red flag that someone’s objection is based on philosophical or political grounds, and your objection is a textbook example of that.
This is an extremely limited mindset. Reminds me of idiots linking to “ask smart questions” which does more to stifle conversation and education than anything else.
When there are other things we could be spending effort on that don't entail mass surveillance, why are you so interested in it being done with AI cameras? Besides, it's still only reactive. You'll still have criminals but you'll catch them a bit more often. You're not addressing the root issues that cause crime.
