And you are right
It is. The ātargetā.
āModellingāā¦āCheckingā. Yup, precisely. I donāt see a computer model as a despicable end-product. It is an integral part of our R&D (or even theorization) toolbelt now, for modelling and checking. As much as a pen and paper for drawing boxes, arrows, and/or equations.
You do realize, that what I find the most interesting known-output of all, as far as V1 goes, is the output of the ālearningā function itself, right ?
aka the end-state of those cells and dendrites and synapses after exposition.
Assuming that you doā¦ I donāt quite understand over what weāre disagreeing here.
- If you think V1 formation is so complicated that it wonāt work in isolation, then weāll try to add parts of a hierarchy. I stated as much already. That endeavor could give us some evidence of this very requirement.
- If you think V1 formation is so simple that any model would do, and thus we wonāt get any insight reaching it, thenā¦ well at that point I donāt think it will be that easy. But right; it is some possible concern. If that turns out to be the case we can always turn the āprobingā part on its head and look for models which fail. Or strip ingredients one by one to get a clue about which are the necessary onesā¦
Weāll learn āsomethingā either way.
I donāt know how my coding skills are relevant to the discussion, since you did understand that I donāt want to hardcode V1-like output (or didnāt you ? the purpose is not a clever edge detector for the sake of it), but let a model learn online and see if its cells tune themselves towards edge detection and stuff.
Now, if your concern is that I canāt model anything before having a well-defined model in the first place, Iāll restate that ālet a model learn onlineā in the sentence above will more likely turn out to be an iterative ālet several, many, theorized models, in turn, learn onlineā. And see which of these succeeds. I may already have some insights for the first tries, grantedā¦ but Iām not putting too much confidence in them anyway, and all these models (against which to ācheck the plausibility of your theoretical ideasā) could very well be dug out/refined/invented as we go.
āInventedāā¦ Hacker-style since Iām no Einstein, sadly.
To concludeā¦ I donāt know how V1 decision of forming āsimpleā edge detection when exposed to visual stimulus is relevant to (A)GI. But I strongly bet that it is. Relevant. V1 is cortex. We both agreed on that, it seems. And I believe, that by witnessing concretely āhowā would V1 be driven to come to that particular choice, weād gain insight into precisely that.
āWhat stands as relevant info and/or coincidences to wire to, from an (A)GIās substrate point of viewā.
Quite the nut to crack if you ask me.