Re:Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t nee...
by username90 on Saturday January 04, 2020 @10:23PM
(#21959413)
Knowing how to input data to the visual cortex doesn't mean that we know how it works. It is the same with neural networks, we know how to pass data to them and how they do the math, but we can't trace back its reasoning to know why it comes to the conclusions it does.
Re:Why are we using black box models in AI when we don’t nee...
by Balgair on Sunday January 05, 2020 @02:01PM
(#21963141)
We have a very very good idea of the mammalian eye-V1 pathway. It's not a straightforward path and describing it in a HN comment is not going to be useful to anyone. Explaining the complex, but well known, pathway is a job best done by other people than myself. We are well aware of what 'data' processing the mammalian brain does at nearly every synapse, and it is a LOT. Right form the cones and rods, data is being highly processed (synapses are VERY noisy, as it turns out). So while more research always comes up with more questions, we are fairly confident about the eye-V1 pathway (contrast that to other organs, like the vestibules, where we're fairly in the dark still).
That said, wait, what? We can't do the back-propagation calculus in a NN? When has that been true and for how long? I thought it was fairly straightforward to know the weights of the connections of the nodes in your network. It's just a tensor you grep for, right?
Mammalian pattern recognition is fairly well understood. We have a good understanding of the information path from the eye to V1 in most model animals. So sure are we of this pathway that we've successfully implanted ships into blind patients and restored sight (results vary a LOT, though).
I know this may not fit pattern recognition in a super-philosophical sense, but damned if it's not a ways down that road. We're literally shocking a person's brain so that they 'see' again (!!!). How V1 feeds into the rest of the brain is VERY active research and has had a lot of successes, but we're a long ways from a 'black box' these days.
Honestly, the auditory pathways are a lot better understood, as they seem to be 'older' and specific tones are represented physically in the mammalian brain (tonotopy). As such we know a lot better (relative to sight, smell, taste, etc) how tones are encoded and how they elicit specific recognitions and responses (this work is NOT straightforward).
In Neuroscience/Biochem, we are getting a LOT closer, but yes, we are not there yet by any means. The 'black box' idea of the mammalian brain is not going to last another 500 years, likely. We're marching along with good time as a species.