←back to thread

549 points orcul | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.41890003[source]
This is an important result.

The actual paper [1] says that functional MRI (which is measuring which parts of the brain are active by sensing blood flow) indicates that different brain hardware is used for non-language and language functions. This has been suspected for years, but now there's an experimental result.

What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs. It's not clear what that something else is. But, as the paper mentions, the low-end mammals and the corvids lack language but have some substantial problem-solving capability. That's seen down at squirrel and crow size, where the brains are tiny. So if someone figures out to do this, it will probably take less hardware than an LLM.

This is the next big piece we need for AI. No idea how to do this, but it's the right question to work on.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07522-w.epdf?shar...

replies(35): >>41890104 #>>41890470 #>>41891063 #>>41891228 #>>41891262 #>>41891383 #>>41891507 #>>41891639 #>>41891749 #>>41892068 #>>41892137 #>>41892518 #>>41892576 #>>41892603 #>>41892642 #>>41892738 #>>41893400 #>>41893534 #>>41893555 #>>41893732 #>>41893748 #>>41893960 #>>41894031 #>>41894713 #>>41895796 #>>41895908 #>>41896452 #>>41896476 #>>41896479 #>>41896512 #>>41897059 #>>41897270 #>>41897757 #>>41897835 #>>41905326 #
KoolKat23 ◴[] No.41890470[source]
> What this tells us for AI is that we need something else besides LLMs.

Basically we need Multimodal LLM's (terrible naming as it's not an LLM then but still).

replies(1): >>41890645 #
Animats ◴[] No.41890645[source]
I don't know what we need. Nor does anybody else, yet. But we know what it has to do. Basically what a small mammal or a corvid does.

There's been progress. Look at this 2020 work on neural net controlled drone acrobatics.[1] That's going in the right direction.

[1] https://rpg.ifi.uzh.ch/docs/RSS20_Kaufmann.pdf

replies(2): >>41890769 #>>41891715 #
fuzzfactor ◴[] No.41890769[source]
You could say language is just the "communication module" but there has got to be another whole underlying interface where non-verbal thoughts are modulated/demodulated to conform to the language expected to be used when communication may or may not be on the agenda.
replies(3): >>41891260 #>>41891635 #>>41891786 #
NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.41891635[source]
In these discussions, I always knee-jerk into thinking "why don't they just look inward on their own minds". But the truth is, most people don't have much to gaze upon internally... they're the meat equivalent of an LLM that can sort of sound like it makes sense. These are the people always bragging about how they have an "internal monologue" and that those that don't are aliens or psychotics or something.

The only reason humans have that "communication model" is because that's how you model other humans you speak to. It's a faculty for rehearsing what you're going to say to other people, and how they'll respond to it. If you have any profound thoughts at all, you find that your spoken language is deficient to even transcribe your thoughts, some "mental tokens" have no short phrases that even describe them.

The only real thoughts you have are non-verbal. You can see this sometimes in stupid schoolchildren who have learned all the correct words to regurgitate, but those never really clicked for them. The mildly clever teachers always assume that if they thoroughly practice the terminology, it will eventually be linked with the concepts themselves and they'll have fully learned it. What's really happening is that there's not enough mental machinery underneath for those words to ever be anything to link up with.

replies(1): >>41891718 #
1. soulofmischief ◴[] No.41891718{3}[source]
This view represents one possible subjective experience of the world. But there are many different possible ways a human brain can learn to experience the world.

I am a sensoral thinker, I often think and internally express myself in purely images or sounds. There are, however, some kinds of thoughts I've learned I can only fully engage with if I speak to myself out loud or at least inside of my head.

The most appropriate mode of thought depends upon the task at hand. People don't typically brag about having internal monologues. They're just sharing their own subjective internal experience, which is no less valid than a chiefly nonverbal one.

replies(1): >>41894404 #
2. soulofmischief ◴[] No.41894630[source]
What? I used the term "sensoral" after thinking about what I wanted to communicate. I have no idea if that is a pop psychology term, I didn't google it. I was attempting to communicate that I often think in visual, aural, tactile or olfactory modes, not just visually or via inner monologue, especially when recalling memories.

You're just projecting at this point and stalking previous comments to start arguments. That is exceedingly immature and absolutely against Hacker News guidelines. You need to reevaluate your behavior. Please refrain from continuing to start arguments on previous posts.