Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 539 +-   Artificial Brain '10 Years Away' on Wednesday July 22 2009, @11:54PM

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday July 22 2009, @11:54PM
from the batteries-not-included dept.
medicine
biotech
SpuriousLogic writes "A detailed, functional artificial human brain can be built within the next 10 years, a leading scientist has claimed. Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project, has already built elements of a rat brain. He told the TED global conference in Oxford that a synthetic human brain would be of particular use finding treatments for mental illnesses. Around two billion people are thought to suffer some kind of brain impairment, he said. 'It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years,' he said."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Awesome (Score:5, Funny)

    by nicolas.kassis (875270) on Wednesday July 22 2009, @11:57PM (#28791675)
    So now we can feed them to the future invasion of zombies? That way we can all co-exists.
    • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheSpoom (715771) * <slashdot@uberm0[ ]et ['0.n' in gap]> on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:34AM (#28791929) Homepage Journal

      You know, we'd all be safe from the zombies if I HAD MY GODDAMN FLYING CAR ALREADY!

      I mean, seriously, Jetsons was on, what, 40 years ago? What happened?

      Unless, of course, the zombies can drive, in which case I'm sure we can all agree that we're fucked.

      • Re:Awesome (Score:4, Funny)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Thursday July 23 2009, @03:39AM (#28792859)

        Awww screw your damned flying car, where are my holographic discs already!!! I got lots of stuff to back up, you got lots of stuff to back up, we all got tons of stuff to back up people! We got all these big fricking drives and haven't had an affordable optical backup medium since DVD! Don't give me that Blu Ray crap either, as we all know that was Sony's way of pushing lots of DRM. Last i checked you can't even play a burnt BD on a set top BD player, or watch BD movies on your PC! So instead of something made by a media company trying to push their multimedia DRM crap, how about a nice holographic disc made from the start for data like DVD was. Then it will become popular, the media companies will be forced to go with it since BD will end up another Laserdisc, and we can all be happy with nice shiny 400+ holodiscs.

        I mean what good is your fricking flying car if you can't even back up your vids huh? Not very good at all. Besides you know the morons talking on cells would make the sky a giant trainwreck anyway. And the only thing a stupid artificial brain would be good for is if we can light a fire under the Japanese asses with it so they will hurry up and build us our perfect sexbots already! I want the very first Alyson Hannigan [theonion.com] bot that rolls off the line, and I'll even pay extra for the Vamp Willow [wikia.com] outfit.

        I mean we can put a man on the moon, but here it is the 21st century and Spoom ain't got his flying car, we all don't have a decent disc to back up our stuff, and I don't have my Alyson Hannigan bot! What the hell good is all this progress for if we can't even get the necessities people!

    • Re:Awesome (Score:4, Funny)

      by roger_pasky (1429241) on Thursday July 23 2009, @04:36AM (#28793123)
      It has already been done!

      Even more, I did it twice, and it was quite pleasing to do both (my wife says so). The two brains came along with arms, legs and a lot of extras.

      They deal with zombies every night they yield "Dadyyyyyyy! Bring me some water..."
  • don't believe it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timpdx (1473923) on Wednesday July 22 2009, @11:58PM (#28791683)
    Maybe we can build the *equivalent* of a human brain (number of neural connections in software, silicon or combination), but we don't even know how the thing functionally works as it is. How are we going to model it?
    • Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:05AM (#28791735) Journal
      I assume that we'd basically adopt a strategy of "enlightened plagiarism": use our (nontrivial) imaging and structural analysis technology to get the best idea we can of the structure of a real brain(without necessarily understanding what it does, or why it is structured as it is). Simulate that structure. If it acts like a real brain, break out the party hats. If it doesn't, try to figure out why, tweak, and try again.

      Being able to build very complex models, based on what we do know, would be extremely valuable in telling us whether or not we are looking at the right structural details, and whether or not we are missing something(and, if so, the difference between our simulation, and the real thing).
      • by setagllib (753300) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:10AM (#28791773)

        A lot of what makes a brain's connections is genetic, and a lot is learned. It wouldn't even begin to function without the genetic component, and it wouldn't survive long or perform any useful task without the learned component. Getting the genetic part right is incredibly difficult (it took evolution millions of years before any organisms could just walk), and fundamentally necessary to get any use out of the brain.

        • by Zironic (1112127) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:21AM (#28791839)

          What the heck are you talking about? None of this is metaphysical, it's theoretically possible with good enough imaging tools to make a 1:1 copy.

          • by wytcld (179112) on Thursday July 23 2009, @09:24AM (#28795043) Homepage

            it's theoretically possible with good enough imaging tools to make a 1:1 copy.

            Several problems with that:

            - When you're at the quantum level, you can't image it without changing it.
            - Okay, so you've changed it. You're after general structure not the details of the instant? But what if the old AI guys were right, and the essence of being a mind is in the programming, not the hardware? Shuffling your image of the quantum-level stuff may mean you get a good image of the hardware, and miss getting a functional program for it entirely.
            - Where are you going to store your image? This is not trivial. The human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any other physical system known. Is there enough storage capacity on the planet to store the complete image details for one moment's slice of one human brain?
            - Once you store something that complex, how in heck are you going to fabricate a duplicate? Over what span of time, with what tools, can you build to that spec?

            Research projects like this are betting that with some drastic simplification you can build something roughly like a human brain, and that this roughest approximation will have useful parallels in operation. But the human brain isn't just electron firings. It's chemical cascades, electromagnetic fields, processing not just across synapses but within them, and quite possibly processing on the quantum level.

            He's going to build something like that? In ten years? Really?

            • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:13AM (#28792159)

              your roommate is a complete bastard

            • Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Interesting)

              by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:49AM (#28792331) Homepage

              Tell you what: tell me how that thing with the car keys works (you know, the one where you look at the table three times and it isn't there, you search for it for 10 minutes elsewhere, and suddenly you see it right there where you looked before), and I'll believe you.

              What's so special about that? The human eye can only see a very tiny fraction of your field of view in focus, everything else is very blurry and pretty much impossible to recognize unless you already know its there. On top of that your eye has a blind spot, everything in that is completly invisible. Your pattern recognition also doesn't work 100% perfect, if you see something upside down instead of the way you expect it, you might not recognize it or not recognize it fast enough and so your eyes might have moved on before the key was recognized.

              Or to sum it up: The brain actively recognizes only a very tiny fraction of the world, everything else is interpolation and guesswork and if your key hides in the later part, you won't find it, especially if you don't expect it there. Seen this [youtube.com]? Pretty much the same thing.

              • Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Interesting)

                by kdemetter (965669) on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:23AM (#28792527)
                There is another explanation ( related more to not find something , whether or not they are close ) :

                Often , in stressfull situations , the mind will think the same over and over , rather than thinking about something else.
                It's the reason you keep opening that same closet , even though you look there a hundred times . Then , when you finally give up , your mind is free to think again , and you can remember it again.

                This is because the brain makes various connections to areas in the brain , depending on past expierence.
                For instance , i might have gotten a drink , and then accidentally put my keys in top of the fridge. You might not remember this , until you give up your search , and pour out a drink , which may activate that part of the brain , making you remember.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:33AM (#28792579)
              Scientist: we can model the human brain in 10 years
              Newage Skeptic: how can you model the brain you don't know how it works?
              Scientist: we don't need to know how it works
              Newage Skeptic: even if you do what you say how do you know it will work?
              Scientist: our theories suggest that it will work
              Newage Skeptic: but sometimes my car keys, I lose them and..
              Scientist: what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
              Newage Skeptic: okay a simple wrong would've done just fine
        • by Knutsi (959723) on Thursday July 23 2009, @03:42AM (#28792877)

          I sometimes wonder though, if the component that gives intelligence is not necessarily that complicated. We seem very capable of adapting to new, abstract input, and this indicates to me that intelligence might be a generic mechanism. Allot of organisms are capable of learning, not just us. That's intelligence as far as I see.

          My personal hypothesis (for what it's worth) is that what we will be able to build will be intelligent, but not necessarily very human. Humans have a genetic component, which includes instincts such as social behavior, and I think intelligence is a layer on top of this that helps us achieve the goals these instincts sets out for us. In the end, the instincts dictate what outcome appears good and bad, and reinforces the patterns of behavior that led to those outcomes.

          It might be that once we set out to explore these underlying insticts, and how to replicate them in a brain like system, they might also prove to be surprisingly simple:

          • A smile from a human = good outcome (social) - possible by image analysis
          • Aggressive sounds from a human looking at you (that is stronger than you) = bad outcome - possible by sound/image analysis
          • Spider or snake-like shape near you = bad outcome - image analysis
          • Smell of fruit = good outcome - chemical analysis of air

          Probably it will be somewhat more complex than this, but I think we might be surprised once we get there. We might also find that tweaking instincts will make the brains, and their attached bodies, be human like or very very different. We might be able to create a brain for whom life is ALL about good feedback from humans (these creatures already live amongst us :p), or ones that are merciless killing machines.

          I think no field will yield more knowledge and understanding of ourselves than the brain-builders in the decades to come.

      • Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:42AM (#28791969)

        The brain is a self-modifying learning machine. Until you can build a self-modifying learning machine, you can have all the structure you want, it won't be functionally equivalent to a human brain.

        • Re:don't believe it (Score:4, Informative)

          by lee1026 (876806) on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:47AM (#28792631)

          You don't have to build a self-modifying learning machine. You can emulate one of those via a machine that is not self-modifying. See:Turing completeness.

          • by fuzzix (700457) <fuzzbucket@eircom.net> on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:45AM (#28792321) Homepage Journal

            don't forget the unexplained brain features that haven't been documented because science can't explain them - like twins feeling what the other feels and people with transplanted organs perceiving memories of the donor.

            Explain?! It hasn't even been observed yet.

            You might as well say "But your precious science has yet to explain psychic powers and zombies!"

          • by Gerafix (1028986) on Thursday July 23 2009, @04:10AM (#28793027)
            Personal anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. We can imitate many things without fully understanding the natural process, to think otherwise is pure delusion.
              • Re:don't believe it (Score:4, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @08:28AM (#28794453)

                When a bacteria gets in your bloodstream your don't consciously perceive it, but still your brains sends those white cells to the battle. So there you have a brain connection to reality that conscious can't perceive.

                Your brain does no such thing. When a bacterial infection is detected, it is detected by chemical differences between the cells that are part of the system and the invaders. Then, the cells that are part of the system end up releasing chemical changes that propagate through the system, and the immune system cells respond to that chemical signal.

                 

                Stop thinking of your body as a singular system operated by your brain. It isn't. It is a group of many different, isolated subsystems that work within the same enclosed environment for a common purpose...keeping themselves in a working environment.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:41AM (#28792301)

          So he's gonna build a functional model of a brain, program in society driven angst and a genetic propensity for outlier behaviour and then treat the artifical responses as source for diagnosis and treatment - well "hello Dr. Frankenstein!".

          Actually, us scientists have already built the artificial brain, and connected it to a historical copy of the web circa 2009. The brain has been designed in such a way that it has memories of past events, borrowed from other peoples lives and stitched together in an amusing way known as a "nerd". Because the brain is so obsessed with finding pictures of the opposite sex, and playing games, it doesn't even notice that all its limbs and senses are actually being generated by the array of computers operated by Google in 2009 (they were donated 8yrs after the cloud became self-aware). Coincidentally, that's why you feel a connection with them, and have projected one of your own behavioral laws upon them in your reality (it wasn't actually their motto in the real world).

          Take no notice of this message. You are about to feel like eating a grilled cheese sandwich. Tomorrow we'll be testing your stress reactions on homoerotic situation #245. Enjoy the sandwich.

      • what? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:15AM (#28792485)

        So, I have all these 10000x10000 TIFFs I just took of a real brain. Now what?

        Guess what I mean is, the brain is not the same from a minute to the next. It modifies itself constantly. We may be able to copy the parts (although I'm pretty sure we're more than 10 years away from that) but until we can make it "run", all we have is a stopped engine. What good would that do?

        Unless what we want is a brain _model_, which is what I think is meant by the article.

  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 22 2009, @11:59PM (#28791697) Homepage
    It is some supercomputer software to simulate a brain. Still cool!
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:00AM (#28791703) Journal
    I'd be pretty concerned about the ethics of experimenting on an artficial brain complex enough to reasonably simulate a human one. "Human rights" aren't terribly well grounded, theoretically; but to the degree that they are, mental complexity seems to be a vital factor(given that we don't generally execute retarded people, it isn't the only one, but it is a big one). Being made of meat isn't obviously a salient factor, nor is being born to human parents.

    An artificial brain of that complexity would be, in effect, a moral person. If you are willing to experiment on one, you might as well just use hobos and orphans and not have to wait a decade for fancy computers(though a simulation would have the huge advantage of read system state out of memory, no mucking around with FMRIs and stuff).
    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:29AM (#28791883)

      While I 100% agree with the need to protect sapient rights regardless of species or construction material you do have to approach this one slightly differently since the stakes are different.

      If I was a silicon brain you could just back me up. As long as you disabled my pain processors you could do whatever you wanted to me. I would even be proud to be helping so many of my organic cousins at nothing but inconvenience. And since I'm a silicon brain with no where to go yet I wouldn't really have anything else to do except be retarded or schizophrenic from time to time.

      • by twostix (1277166) on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:27AM (#28792227)

        And if this silicon brain decides that it's had enough of being experimented on?

        And what if they don't turn your "pain receptors" off? What if they specifically want to experiment on you to see how much pain you can endure? If you think that medical scientists don't often do brutally unethical experimentation on "lesser" humans you'd be very very wrong (though since the 90's it's gotten much better in the west). As if they're going to care about a brain that they *created*. In fact I can see that as a selling point "see we can do these horrid experiments on this artifical brain so that we don't have to do it on orphans, prisoners and the institutionalised - like we used to".

        Then again if you were regarded as a sentient being would they then have to keep you alive for the rest of eternity lest they be charged with murder if they turn you off or delete you?

        If you create a sentient being you have a responsibility to that being and no you can't just kill it if you get bored with it or it just doesn't meet your expectations, otherwise there would be a hell of a lot more infanticide.

    • by twostix (1277166) on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:03AM (#28792101)

      If you are willing to experiment on one, you might as well just use hobos and orphans and not have to wait a decade for fancy computers(though a simulation would have the huge advantage of read system state out of memory, no mucking around with FMRIs and stuff).

      Using orphans, prisoners the military and even middle and lower class children as unknowing guinea pigs was never a problem for many scientists and DRs until the '70s.

      Sorry scratch that for many it still isn't [bbc.co.uk].

      One thing to notice is that various government departments are up to their arms in it as well.

      Some choice examples:

      (1957) "In order to study how blood flows through children's brains, researchers at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia perform the following experiment on healthy children, ranging in age from three to 11: They insert needles into each child's femoral artery (thigh) and jugular vein (neck), bringing the blood down from the brain. Then, they force each child to inhale gas through a facemask. In their subsequent Journal of Clinical Investigation article on this study, the researchers note that, in order to perform the experiment, they had to restrain some of the child test subjects by bandaging them to boards (Goliszek). "

      (1962) New York University researcher Saul Krugman promises parents with mentally disabled children definite enrollment into the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, N.Y., a resident mental institution for mentally retarded children, in exchange for their signatures on a consent form for procedures presented as "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involve deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of infected patients, so that Krugman can study the course of viral hepatitis as well the effectiveness of a hepatitis vaccine

      (1962)
      Researchers at the Laurel Children's Center in Maryland test experimental acne antibiotics on children and continue their tests even after half of the young test subjects develop severe liver damage because of the experimental medication (Goliszek).

      (1963)
      Researchers at the University of Washington directly irradiate the testes of 232 prison inmates in order to determine radiation's effects on testicular function. When these inmates later leave prison and have children, at least four have babies born with birth defects. The exact number is unknown because researchers never follow up on the men to see the long-term effects of their experiment (Goliszek).

      (1967)

      Researchers paralyze 64 prison inmates in California with a neuromuscular compound called succinylcholine, which produces suppressed breathing that feels similar to drowning. When five prisoners refuse to participate in the medical experiment, the prison's special treatment board gives researchers permission to inject the prisoners with the drug against their will

      (1968)
      Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas and the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education begin an oral contraceptive study on 70 poverty-stricken Mexican-American women, giving only half the oral contraceptives they think they are receiving and the other half a placebo. When the results of this study are released a few years later, it stirs tremendous controversy among Mexican-Americans

      (1990)
      The CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals of Southern California inject 1,500 six-month-old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles with an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. Adding to the risk, children less than a year old may not have an adequate amount of myelin around their nerves, possibly resulting in impaired neural development because of the vaccine. The CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected into their children was experimental (Goliszek).

      I wonder how many here will defend these scientists and their experiments?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:13AM (#28791791)

        And yet, we are just "atoms". Ever heard of emergent properties?

          • by BillyBlaze (746775) <tomfelker@gmail.com> on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:31AM (#28792569)

            Science does ignore things outside of the universe, but amazingly enough, everything that matters is, by definition, inside it.

            In other words, suppose there is a soul. If we can still make a brain simulator that acts conscious, then it doesn't really matter, because it had no observable effect. If, because humans have souls and computers don't, we can't make a conscious brain simulator, then the soul has an observable effect, and can be reasoned about with science. Now, in the first case, you might say that the brain simulator acts conscious but isn't. It would be a lot like saying people with a different skin color act conscious but aren't, though - not morally defensible.

            Religions are not dualist because their ability to reason without evidence has allowed them to see some great truth that science has missed. They're dualist because they were conceived before we came to the great realization that the behavior of living things emerges from the physical laws.

      • by miggyb (1537903) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:30AM (#28791889) Homepage
        I'd argue the opposite. I don't think being human has anything to do with the outer shell. I, for one, use my body as a way to get my head to important places. A virtualized brain would still be self-aware and capable of having real, human emotions, in exactly the same way you or I do.
        • by JuzzFunky (796384) on Thursday July 23 2009, @01:19AM (#28792189)
          Consciousness is more than just a mental state. It is a state of being. A key component to emotions is that they emerge as a direct result of physical embodiment. For example, the emotional state of fear [wikipedia.org] feels like it does because of the way our bodies react when they are frightened.

          Fear is often preceded by astonishment, and is so far akin to it, that both lead to the senses of sight and hearing being instantly aroused. In both cases the eyes and mouth are widely opened, and the eyebrows raised. The frightened man at first stands like a statue motionless and breathless, or crouches down as if instinctively to escape observation. The heart beats quickly and violently, so that it palpitates or knocks against the ribs... That the skin is much affected under the sense of great fear, we see in the marvellous manner in which perspiration immediately exudes from it... The hairs also on the skin stand erect; and the superficial muscles shiver. In connection witih the disturbed action of the heart, the breathing is hurried. The salivary glands act imperfectly; the mouth becomes dry, and is often opened and shut.
          - Charles Darwin The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals

          I do not doubt that an artificial brain could become self aware but for it to experience real, human emotions it would need to be embodied in an equivalent way.

      • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:32AM (#28791915)

        You are assuming that a computer program of that nature would be, for some reason, not conscious or thinking like a person. Yet why should you differentiate between a computer program and a physical neurons 'n glial cells, etc? I see no basis for doing so, as the matter itself, inert, is nothing. We only get a "person" when that matter if functioning. Why shouldn't consciousness, personhood, simply be the computational states and not the matter itself? It's true there are physical differences between a computer program and brain (for example, the synaptic gaps) but these could be simulated as well.

        I have no reason to believe that consciousness/personhood is anything but substrate neutral. Man, machine, machine-man, or computer program, any of these can potentially be conscious. Unless you want to postulate silly metaphysical things such as souls, which are vague and poorly defined--and unnecessary, for a soul does not apparently hold that which makes us what we are, that is, our memories or inclinations.

        • by enFi (1401137) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:44AM (#28791983)
          Moreover, if the brain is simulated well enough, it will certainly appear self-aware. Even if there is a difference (such as it not having a soul), that's not something we can (so far) experimentally determine, and therefore any metaphysical postulations are, or should be, beside the point in the question of ethical behavior towards the simulation.
          • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday July 23 2009, @03:57AM (#28792963)

            My comment about anesthesia was that a simulation of a thing, is *not* the thing in question it's hard for naive physicalists to grasp,

            What you fail to see is that conciousness is not a physical thing. Your physicalist rules which apply to thing (a simulation of X is not an X) therefore do not apply to conciousness. Perhaps if you dould define conciousness, the debate might become easier. I suspect you can't because noone has so far.

            "I think, therefore I am". That's all you really know. You can't tell that anyone else around you is really real. They appear "concious" and so you choose to call them "concious". You deduce that purely by ovserving their behaviour and actions: you observe no internal process. So why can't a machine be deemed concious by the same rules?

  • 10 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saija (1114681) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:01AM (#28791713)
    I've been listening "in 10 years we'll have X awesome technology", but time come and go and nothing has changed, so, i'll be expecting this artificial brain so i could drive my flying car(you know, that 3D driving thingie) to arrive at the entrance of the spacial elevator so i could bang some lunar chicks.
    Btw 10 years and i still have some bad english
    • Re:10 years? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by setagllib (753300) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:15AM (#28791801)

      It's very simple to see why this happens. When you start a project, or even just a stage of a project, you have some list of problems and you may even have some idea of the solutions. You can use good judgement to estimate the time it takes (at least to some order of magnitude), and rounding off to 10 years makes for good press.

      But when you actually begin the work, every problem you solve illuminates a whole new set of problems to solve. If each solution opens up more than one new problem, you've "increased" the amount of work left to be done. So either you cut back on some of the goals (to reduce the list of problems) or you admit it wasn't as simple as you thought and announce a new project to tackle some subset of the new set of problems.

    • by syousef (465911) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:20AM (#28791831) Journal

      Translation: How long before no one will remember or care what sensationalist claim I made. Hopefully I'm outta here by then. I know. 10 years!

      It's like the 100 and 1000 year longevity of CDs. Those companies are counting on the fact that they won't be around to sue!

    • Re:10 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcrbids (148650) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:39AM (#28791957) Journal

      I've been listening "in 10 years we'll have X awesome technology", but time come and go and nothing has changed, so, i'll be expecting this artificial brain so i could drive my flying car(you know, that 3D driving thingie) to arrive at the entrance of the spacial elevator so i could bang some lunar chicks.

      Not everything predicted has come true, to be sure. But think about it: you are leaving a post on a computer located hundreds or thousands of miles away, along with hundreds of other people, and I, hundreds or thousands of miles away, am replying. Neither of us pays much at all for this service, which is nearly ubiquitous.

      You can casually watch television shows on demand, on your phone. Which, BTW, is roughly analogous to the pocket communicators on the original series of "Star Trek", except that they couldn't watch shows or take video/pictures or blog or play solitaire on them.

      There is sufficient storage in your computer to track every single man, woman, and child on earth, many times over. The price of photovoltaic solar cells has followed a consistent, exponential drop in price (half price every 5-ish years) and is now close to parity with coal.

      Cars are many, many, many times safer than they used to be - most accidents now result in basically no significant injuries, even when the car is totalled, thanks to crumple zones. Flat panel TVs are commonplace, with resolutions that rival photographic paper. Flexbile, folding displays are available, if (still) expensive.

      I'm not sure what kind of changes you would expect, but these are just a few of the awesome technologies that I've seen unfold in my 30-something years. I mean, what do you want?!?!

  • by Kohath (38547) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:02AM (#28791723)

    Then you won't have to listen to the cliche that an artificial brain will always be 10 years away. No one would use eleven years in a cliche.

  • Yeah. RIght. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aepervius (535155) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:04AM (#28791731)
    In 10 years we will have artificial brain, in 50 we will have fusion. In 20 we will have true AI and cyborg. And in 5 years the date estimate for the 3 above will probably not have changed by much (I say probably as we could do leap and bound forward, but at the moment I don't see that as probable).
      • Re:Yeah. RIght. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anpheus (908711) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:24AM (#28791855)

        This is different from AI, and is coming from someone whose expertise on the subject is demonstrable. He's not talking about AI, he's talking about simulating all of the tissue in a human brain and providing it with stimuli to determine reactions.

        He's not saying it'll necessarily be a good ol' buddy ol' pal right off the bat. Probably not. Probably won't even be capable of simple arithmetic for years. On the other hand, we could simulate things like lesions effecting far away parts of the brain, various known "paths" that signals travel in the brain and ways to alter those paths or correct flaws, etc.

        As well, we could simulate the effect of various drugs on large-scale phenomena in the brain to help try and understand (a.) what a drug will do before it undergoes testing, and (b.) why exactly it is that makes these drugs work so well. Both questions are currently unanswerable. We know what a drug does, but rarely do we understand the full extent of why a particular drug helps certain conditions.

  • by jlar (584848) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:20AM (#28791835) Homepage

    "Around two billion people are thought to suffer some kind of brain impairment, he said."

    Only two billion? Sounds kind of low. My estimate is more in the neighborhood of 6-7 billion.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday July 23 2009, @02:17AM (#28792507) Homepage

    It probably is within reach to build a hardware equivalent of a human brain. We don't know how to architect it, but building enough custom ICs and interconnecting them is probably within reach. The right architecture for simulating neurons probably involves some huge number of fast processors with limited memory, like a graphics board.

    I'm encouraged that this guy is trying to model a mouse brain. About twenty years ago, I was at a seminar by Rod Brooks. He was talking about trying to jump from insect-level AI, where he'd made some progress, to human-level AI. I asked him why he was trying to make such a big jump; a mouse brain might be within reach. He said "Because I don't want to go down in history as the person who created the world's greatest robot mouse". So instead, Brooks did Cog, a stationary robot with head and arms which tries to fake acting human and didn't really lead anywhere. Taking a smaller step might work better.

    Reaching for mouse-level AI is promising. Mice and humans have about 85% DNA commonality. All the mammals seem to have have roughly similar brain components, although the size ratios of the different sections vary widely. Humans have about 1000x the brain mass of a mouse. So if we can get a solid simulation of a mouse brain, it may be mostly a scaleup from there.

    The classic mistake in AI is that someone comes up with a reasonable idea, and then thinks they're one step from human-level AI. That's approaching the problem as if it were easy. Fifty years in, we can now conclude it is hard. So taking smaller bites is indicated.

    When we build an artificial brain, it will be rack-mounted in 19 inch racks.

  • Hopefully (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cornwallis (1188489) * on Thursday July 23 2009, @05:32AM (#28793323)
    members of Congress can wait that long to get one.
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday July 23 2009, @12:51AM (#28792025) Journal
      Cancer cures have been pretty underwhelming; but 5 and 10 year survival rates for many flavors of cancer have been heading steadily in the right direction. The efficacy of pain control, anti-emetics, and other ancillary stuff has seen some improvement as well(unsexy; but not puking your guts up, as much, during treatment is definitely worth something). Also, there has been some interesting work in cancer prevention which is even better. The HPV vaccines, for instance, show a great deal of promise in preventing a substantial percentage of cervical, anal, and penile cancers, while reductions in smoking should reduce lung cancer incidence rather nicely.

      Talk is generally PR hype; but sometimes the PR department is attached to people who do real work.
One person's error is another person's data.