Sanders' proposal for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies is, IMO, a good idea.
AI will be a critical piece of infrastructure, one which should be built with appropriate safe-guards and environmental planning.
Trying to cancel AI is foolish - but leaving it to market forces is too.
Now out in Nature Machine Intelligence @NatMachIntell “Adopting a human developmental visual diet yields robust and shape-based AI vision”:
doi.org/10.1038/s422.... A wonderful case where brain inspiration improved AI.
With @martisamuser.bsky.social, Radek Cichy and @timkietzmann.bsky.social .
What would be the point of stopping them if you're doing the same thing?
I want to see more evo-devo in brain-inspired AI
Could it be that the cerebellum is a perfect area to study the duality of prediction and control?
But if going deeper means finding a connection to other theories describing that or other processes, it's hardcore theory-making, and deserves ultimate respect 🫡 2/2
I guess, what I mean is that if it's a deeper refinement of a theory that's focused on some particular process, personally, I'd like to see evidence that this theory is really good in describing that process before making that bet. 1/
Oh, definitely there are theories for theoreticians. I think, what distinguishes them is the scope - they are not about some specific idea/phenomenon, but a generalization of many ideas/phenomena that share some principles.
I think the point of the theory-experiment loop is that we don't really know which ideas are worth developing in detail unless we try to root ourselves in experiments. The ideas can be abundant, but most of them would be just ideas
Pride and superiority over reviewer 2 who could not see the obvious link between your past and current works
OR
Sadness from being old and not at your peak form anymore (which you were at when writing that previous paper)