vercaemert

Same question answered under other comment.

Take a gander at the OpenWorm project. It's a great example of how simple neuronal activity is (given details like the connections, number of receptors, and transmitter infrastructure). SOTA models of neuronal activity are simple enough for problem sets in undergraduate biomedical engineering programs.

Sure, to your point, we don't know. But the worm above (nematode) swims and seeks food when dropped into a physics engine.

My main point is that the scale of the human brain is well beyond the capabilities of modern imaging modalities, and it will likely remain so indefinitely. Fascicles we can image, individual axons we cannot. I guess, theoretically, we'll eventually be able to (but it's not relevant to us or any of our remote descendants).

I worked on the Human Connectome Project.

If they freeze the vesicles that deliver transmitters and make them analyzable, you've got all the information you need. In terms of a modern ANN, it's the connections (axons) and the weights (transmitters/receptors in tandem).

That said, this article doesn't get to the point in the free section. How are they collecting the information? Slicing is inherently destructive. Someone's got to manufacture an entirely novel imaging modality. Perhaps they could scan millimeters ahead of the slice at a resolution high enough to image receptors. Not possible currently.

I love this conundrum.

I have a good analogy. 10 years ago, I was convinced that a 24-inch 1080p monitor at arm's length was perfection. There could never be any reason to improve over it. I could do everything I ever wanted to, to a standard I would never need to improve upon.

Yet here we are. The simplest and most obvious improvement is a 24" 4k monitor at 200% scaling. Basically, better in every way.

There's a discussion to be had about whether you need the better setup, which I think is your point, but there's no denying you'd want it (all other variables the same).

Yes. Not a drug in the typical sense. Simply replacing the protein in which the mice are deficient (that was identified by measuring levels in human spinal fluid).

Peter often reiterates that he doesn't recommend the use of open models for OpenClaw. They're much weaker when it comes to prompt injection, being the main reason. I'd be interested to understand the security measures put in place here.

The joke is that Willie Nelson has used very high concentrations simultaneously frying his brain cells and staving off Alzheimer's.

at present, it's just a fun discussion

the complexity of advanced connectomes is so far beyond our imaging capabilities that we have no way of knowing how far away from understanding intelligence we are

see the open worm project to get an idea of what artificial neuronal architecture requires to express anything meaningful. (and an interesting ethical perspective on digital consciousness.) my point being that the number of neurons is fairly meaningless. you could take neuron models and link them circuit-style to play doom at the 10^2 scale if you wanted. from a cellular neurophysiological perspective, there's nothing particularly special here (as opposed to sentience/intelligence that's a paradigm shift beyond our understanding). and, in my opinion, absolutely nothing to be even the slightest bit worried about ethically.

Ah, that's a good point.

This will be a Harvard Business case study on market share.

Claude Code was instrumental for Anthropic.

What's interesting is that people haven't heard of it/them outside of software development circles. I work on a volunteer project, a webapp basically, and even the other developers don't know the difference between Cursor and Claude Code.

It's impressive, even if the books and the posts you're talking about were both key parts of the training data.

There are many academic domains where the research portion of a PhD is essentially what the model just did. For example, PhD students in some of the humanities will spend years combing ancient sources for specific combinations of prepositions and objects, only to write a paper showing that the previous scholars were wrong (and that a particular preposition has examples of being used with people rather than places).

This sort of experiment shows that Opus would be good at that. I'm assuming it's trivial for the OP to extend their experiment to determine how many times "wingardium leviosa" was used on an object rather than a person.

(It's worth noting that other models are decent at this, and you would need to find a way to benchmark between them.)