@brockpierson I am replying here, but i think it’s a bit sad that the algorithm isn’t better at recognising value
Sure most of my followers may have followed me because of my sharing of ither interests on other sm, and hence what i post here ends up w max 2 likes
Anyways thanks for boosting
I worked on the fly connectome for over 6 years, and let me just say that y’all have to slow this hype train way down.
Connectomes are amazing. Biomechanical models are amazing. Linking the two is awesome.
But scientists at the HHMI Janelia Research Campus, Princeton, and other institutes have been working on this for years now, and it’s not clear to me what’s new in the below.
And connectomes are still missing a LOT of information. We’ve had the connectome of the worm for over 30 years now, and we still can’t reliably simulate a virtual worm.
For example, connectomes don’t capture information about neuromodulator or neuropeptide release sites or receptors. These molecules are constantly changing the properties of neurons in the brain in ways that we have yet to really understand.
And we don’t yet understand animal behavior well enough to refine and/or evaluate whole-brain simulations effectively.
@AdamMarblestone and @doristsao already made many of these points, as well as many other good ones, but I just wanted to also add my two cents.
Yeah, so parts of the ai community are making a big deal about the model being untrained
I think that five or six million years (for this exact species ) worth of evolution should count as training!
We've uploaded a fruit fly. We took the @FlyWireNews connectome of the fruit fly brain, applied a simple neuron model (@Philip_Shiu Nature 2024) and used it to control a MuJoCo physics-simulated body, closing the loop from neural activation to action.
A few things I want to say about what this means and where we're going at @eonsys. 🧵
answers that improve the quality of the discussions, expanded context windows that remember all salient points of any thread, etc)
Whether Moltbook flies or not it has shown a possible path forward
Good, bad — we will see
Moltbook
A lot of people dismiss Moltbook because surface level the posts look like AI slop. Nothing new. We have seen enough of that from our human-prompted LLMs
But understanding that AI slop doesn’t indicate human level intelligence is trivial. This was never the debate
Very few posts even get an answer. And most of the answers in no way heighten the quality of the discussion
But here’s the thing. Even if this Wright brothers model stays grounded, it tells us exactly what the next version needs to improve. (Maybe train the agents to give more