It’s generally agreed machine learning and AI provide neuroscience with tools for analysis and theoretical principles to test in brains, but there is less agreement about what neuroscience can provide AI. Should computer scientists and engineers care about how brains compute, or will it just slow them down, for example? Chris, Sam, and I discuss how neuroscience might contribute to AI moving forward, considering the past and present. This discussion also leads into related topics, like the role of prediction versus understanding, AGI, explainable AI, value alignment, the fundamental conundrum that humans specify the ultimate values of the tasks AI will solve, and more. Plus, a question from previous guest Andrew Saxe. Also, check out Sam’s previous appearance on the podcast.
0:00 – Intro
5:00 – Good ol’ days
13:50 – AI for neuro, neuro for AI
24:25 – Intellectual diversity in AI
28:40 – Role of philosophy
30:20 – Operationalization and benchmarks
36:07 – Prediction vs. understanding
42:48 – Role of humans in the loop
46:20 – Value alignment
51:08 – Andrew Saxe question
53:16 – Explainable AI
58:55 – Generalization
1:01:09 – What has AI revealed about us?
1:09:38 – Neuro for AI
1:20:30 – Concluding remarks
Support the Podcast Andrew and I discuss his work exploring how various facets of deep networks contribute to their function, i.e. deep network theory....
Support the show to get full episodes and join the Discord community. James, Andrew, and Weinan discuss their recent theory about how the brain...
Nicole and I discuss how a signature for visual memory can be coded among the same population of neurons known to encode object identity,...