|
|
|
|
|
by dqh
94 days ago
|
|
Cortical Labs CTO here. My focus is on the system itself rather than applications, but for what it's worth .. When the neurons didn't get stimulated by the application, performance did not improve. The only explanation our data science people has is that the neurons began to learn and perform the desired (highly abstracted) task of 'playing Doom'. This was not a surprise as we've shown this before with a version of Pong using a different platform. We built the CL1 and the CL API to enable rapid iteration on this sort of work. One benefit to this is that when you have a measurable learning effect, you can measure this before and after exposure to an experimental drug or other molecule. It becomes possible to test the impact on neuron function, not just survival. |
|
I've also seen implementations of realistic neurons, spiking models, etc. In software implementations, what combo of libraries and hardware would equal your 200,000 biological neurons in performance (esp training)? How many GPU's are we talking about?
(Note: If you haven't already, it might be helpful to publish a stack like that so people can experiment with encodings or reinforcement methods at no cost to you.)