[lukan]

"It’s amazing how closely this synthetic perceptual pipeline parallels the way our own brains interpret the world."

It is amazing, that the synthetic pipeline, that was build to mimick the brain, seems to mimick the brain?

That sounds a bit tautological and otherwise I doubt we have really understood how our brain exactly interprets the world.

In general this is definitely interesting research, but worded like this, it smells a bit hyped to me.

[Shorel]

I interpreted it the other way around.

We can think of a solution space, with potentially many good solutions to the vision problem, and we can, in science fiction-like speculation, that the other solutions will be very different and surprise us.

Then this experiment shows its solution is the same we already knew, and that's it.

Then there aren't many good potential solutions, there is only one, and the ocean of possibilities becomes the pond of this solution.

[trhway]

The convolutional kernels in the first levels do converge to Gabors like the ones in V1 (and there were math works in the 90-ies, in neuro research, about optimality of such kernels) so it wouldn't be surprising if higher levels would converge to something that is similar to the higher levels of visual cortex (like hierarchical feature aggregation that is nicely illustrated by deep dreaming and also feels like it can be optimal under reasonable conditions and thus would be expected to emerge).

[perching_aix]

Did you read the part where he explicitly mentioned that they discovered how enforcing that architecture was not necessary, as it would emerge on its own?

[lukan]

I did, but it was not clear to me, how it was meant. I assume the basic design was done before (with the brain in mind).