I do two things: I design mobile computers and I study brains. Today's talk is about brains and -- (Audience member cheers) Yay! I have a brain fan out there.
Bavim se dvjema stvarima. Kreiram mobilna računala i bavim se proučavanjem mozga. Današnji je govor o mozgu i, odlično, tamo je negdje fan mozga.
(Laughter) If I could have my first slide, you'll see the title of my talk and my two affiliations. So what I'm going to talk about is why we don't have a good brain theory, why it is important that we should develop one and what we can do about it. I'll try to do all that in 20 minutes. I have two affiliations. Most of you know me from my Palm and Handspring days, but I also run a nonprofit scientific research institute called the Redwood Neuroscience Institute in Menlo Park. We study theoretical neuroscience and how the neocortex works. I'm going to talk all about that.
(Smijeh) Govorit ću, ako mi možete staviti prvi dijapozitiv, vidjet ćete naslov mog govora i moje druge dvije podružnice. Ono o čemu ću pričati je zašto ne postoji dobra teorija o mozgu, zašto je važno da razvijemo takvu teoriju i što možemo poduzeti po tom pitanju. Pokušat ću to napraviti u 20 minuta. Imam dvije podružnice. Većina vas me poznaje još iz vremena kada sam radio u tvrtki Palm and Handspring, ali vodim i neprofitni znanstveni institut neuroznanstveni institut Redwood u Menlo Parku gdje se bavimo teorijskom neuroznanošću i načinom rada neokorteksa.
I have one slide on my other life, the computer life, and that's this slide here. These are some of the products I've worked on over the last 20 years, starting from the very original laptop to some of the first tablet computers and so on, ending up most recently with the Treo, and we're continuing to do this. I've done this because I believe mobile computing is the future of personal computing, and I'm trying to make the world a little bit better by working on these things. But this was, I admit, all an accident. I really didn't want to do any of these products. Very early in my career I decided I was not going to be in the computer industry.
O tome ću vam pričati. Jedan dijapozitiv je o mom drugom životu, računalnom životu, to je ovaj dijapozitiv ovdje. Ovo su neki od proizvoda na kojima radim zadnjih 20 godina, počevši od prvotnih prijenosnih računala do nekih početnih tablet računala i tako dalje, završivši, nedavno, s Treom i nastavljamo s daljim radom na tome. Bavim se ovime jer iskreno vjerujem da je mobilno računalstvo budućnost osobnog računalstva te, radeći na ovome, pokušavam učiniti svijet malo boljim. No, moram priznati, ovo je sve bila slučajnost. Zaista nisam želio napraviti niti jedan od ovih proizvoda i već sam na početku svoje karijere odlučio kako neću raditi u računalnoj industriji.
Before that, I just have to tell you about this picture of Graffiti I picked off the web the other day. I was looking for a picture for Graffiti that'll text input language. I found a website dedicated to teachers who want to make script-writing things across the top of their blackboard, and they had added Graffiti to it, and I'm sorry about that.
I prije nego što vam krenem pričati o tome, moram vam reći o ovoj maloj slici grafita koju sam pronašao neki dan na Internetu. Tražio sam fotografiju grafita, malenog tekstualnog oblika, i pronašao sam web stranicu posvećenu učiteljima koji žele napraviti takvo nešto iznad svojih školskih ploča tamo su dodali te grafite i sada mi je žao zbog ovoga.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So what happened was, when I was young and got out of engineering school at Cornell in '79, I went to work for Intel and was in the computer industry, and three months into that, I fell in love with something else. I said, "I made the wrong career choice here," and I fell in love with brains. This is not a real brain. This is a picture of one, a line drawing. And I don't remember exactly how it happened, but I have one recollection, which was pretty strong in my mind. In September of 1979, Scientific American came out with a single-topic issue about the brain. It was one of their best issues ever. They talked about the neuron, development, disease, vision and all the things you might want to know about brains. It was really quite impressive.
Dogodilo se sljedeće: kada sam bio mlad i kada sam završio računalno inženjerstvo na Cornellu 1979. godine, počeo sam raditi za Intel. Radio sam u toj industriji i nakon tri mjeseca zavolio sam nešto drugo te sam rekao „odabrao sam krivo područje u karijeri“, zaljubio sam se u mozak. Ovo nije pravi mozak. Ovo je slika mozga napravljena tehnikom ocrtavanja. Ne znam kako se to točno dogodilo, ali sjećam se jednog događaja koji je vrlo istaknut u mojem sjećanju. U rujnu 1979. godine, izašao je broj časopisa Scientific American posvećen jednoj temi - mozgu. Bio je to vrlo dobar broj. Jedno od najboljih izdanja. U časopisu je bila riječ o neuronima, razvoju, bolestima, vidu i svim drugim stvarima koje biste željeli znati o mozgu. Zapravo je bilo vrlo impresivno. Dobijete dojam kako puno toga znamo o mozgu.
One might've had the impression we knew a lot about brains. But the last article in that issue was written by Francis Crick of DNA fame. Today is, I think, the 50th anniversary of the discovery of DNA. And he wrote a story basically saying, this is all well and good, but you know, we don't know diddly squat about brains, and no one has a clue how they work, so don't believe what anyone tells you. This is a quote from that article, he says: "What is conspicuously lacking" -- he's a very proper British gentleman -- "What is conspicuously lacking is a broad framework of ideas in which to interpret these different approaches." I thought the word "framework" was great. He didn't say we didn't have a theory. He says we don't even know how to begin to think about it. We don't even have a framework. We are in the pre-paradigm days, if you want to use Thomas Kuhn. So I fell in love with this. I said, look: We have all this knowledge about brains -- how hard can it be? It's something we can work on in my lifetime; I could make a difference. So I tried to get out of the computer business, into the brain business.
Međutim, zadnji je članak tog izdanja napisao Francis Crick, poznat po otkriću DNK. Mislim da je danas 50-ta obljetnica otkrića DNK. Crick je napisao članak u kojem u biti kaže, „sve je to super, ali po pitanju mozga mi pojma nemamo, nitko ne zna kako sve to funkcionira tako da ne vjerujte svemu što vam netko kaže“. Ovo je citat iz tog članka. On kaže, „Ono što očito nedostaje“, on je uglađeni britanski gospodin, tako da, „Ono što očito nedostaje jest široki okvir ideja putem kojeg bismo interpretirali različite pristupe mozgu“. Mislio sam da je riječ „okvir“ odlična. Nije čak niti rekao kako nemamo teoriju. On kaže da niti ne znamo kako bismo trebali započeti misliti o tome -- nemamo niti okvir. Ako želimo parafrazirati Thomasa Kuhna – trenutno smo u razdoblju prije paradigmi. I tako sam se zaljubio u ovo i rekao „gledajte, posjedujemo svo to znanje o mozgu. Koliko teško može biti? To je nešto čime se možemo baviti za moga života“. Mislio sam da mogu napraviti nešto, pa sam pokušao otići iz svijeta računalstva u svijet mozga.
First, I went to MIT, the AI lab was there. I said, I want to build intelligent machines too, but I want to study how brains work first. And they said, "Oh, you don't need to do that. You're just going to program computers, that's all. I said, you really ought to study brains. They said, "No, you're wrong." I said, "No, you're wrong," and I didn't get in.
Prvo sam otišao na MIT gdje imaju laboratorij za umjetnu inteligenciju i rekao sam im „i ja želim raditi inteligentne strojeve, ali način na koji to želim napraviti je tako da prvo proučim kako radi mozak“. Rekli su mi „ma ne trebate to raditi. Mi ćemo samo programirati računala, samo to i moramo raditi“. Ja sam im rekao „ne, stvarno biste trebali proučiti mozak“. „Znate, u krivu ste“, rekli su mi. Ja sam im rekao da su oni u krivu i nisu me primili. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
I was a little disappointed -- pretty young -- but I went back again a few years later, this time in California, and I went to Berkeley. And I said, I'll go in from the biological side. So I got in the PhD program in biophysics. I was like, I'm studying brains now. Well, I want to study theory. They said, "You can't study theory about brains. You can't get funded for that. And as a graduate student, you can't do that." So I said, oh my gosh. I was depressed; I said, but I can make a difference in this field. I went back in the computer industry and said, I'll have to work here for a while. That's when I designed all those computer products.
Bio sam malo razočaran -- poprilično mlad, ali nakon nekoliko sam godina pokušao ponovno i taj sam put otišao u Kaliforniju, na Berkeley. Rekao sam, pokušat ću pristupiti problemu s biološke strane. Primili su me na doktorski studij biofizike; mislio sam „u redu, sada proučavam mozak“ i rekao sam im „želim proučiti teoriju“. A oni su rekli „a ne, ne možeš se baviti teorijom mozga. To se ne radi. Ne možeš dobiti sredstva za tako nešto. A kao doktorand time se ne možeš baviti“. „Bog moj mili“, rekao sam. Bio sam vrlo deprimiran. „Ali mogu biti od značaja u ovom području“, rekao sam. Sljedeće što sam napravio je da sam se vratio računalnoj industriji i rekao „izgleda da ću neko vrijeme morati raditi ovdje, nešto napraviti“. Tada sam kreirao sve one računalne proizvode.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I said, I want to do this for four years, make some money, I was having a family, and I would mature a bit, and maybe the business of neuroscience would mature a bit. Well, it took longer than four years. It's been about 16 years. But I'm doing it now, and I'm going to tell you about it. So why should we have a good brain theory? Well, there's lots of reasons people do science. The most basic one is, people like to know things. We're curious, and we go out and get knowledge. Why do we study ants? It's interesting. Maybe we'll learn something useful, but it's interesting and fascinating. But sometimes a science has other attributes which makes it really interesting.
Rekao sam „želim se ovime baviti četiri godine, zaraditi nešto novaca, osnovati obitelj, malo ću sazrijeti, možda će i područje neuroznanosti malo sazrijeti“. Prošlo je više od četiri godine. Već je 16 godina tome. Ali sada se bavim time i pričat ću vam o tome. Zašto nam je potrebna dobra teorija o mozgu? Ljudi se bave znanošću iz raznoraznih razloga. Jedan on njih -- onaj temeljni -- je taj što ljudi vole znati stvari. Znatiželjni smo, pa odemo u svijet i pokupimo znanje, razumijete? Zašto proučavamo mrave? Zato što je zanimljivo. Možda ćemo saznati nešto vrlo korisno, ali zanimljivo ih je i fascinantno proučavati. Ponekad, neka znanost ima neke druge karakteristike koje ju čine vrlo zanimljivom.
Sometimes a science will tell something about ourselves; it'll tell us who we are. Evolution did this and Copernicus did this, where we have a new understanding of who we are. And after all, we are our brains. My brain is talking to your brain. Our bodies are hanging along for the ride, but my brain is talking to your brain. And if we want to understand who we are and how we feel and perceive, we need to understand brains. Another thing is sometimes science leads to big societal benefits, technologies, or businesses or whatever. This is one, too, because when we understand how brains work, we'll be able to build intelligent machines. That's a good thing on the whole, with tremendous benefits to society, just like a fundamental technology.
Ponekad nam znanost kaže nešto o nama, o tome tko smo. Ponekad, kao u slučaju evolucije i Kopernikovog heliocentričnog sustava, dobijemo novo saznanje o tome tko smo. Na kraju krajeva, mi smo naši mozgovi. Moj mozak razgovara s vašim mozgom. Naša su tijela tu suvišna, moj mozak razgovara s vašim mozgom. I ako želimo razumijeti tko smo, kako osjećamo i doživljavamo svijet tada trebamo razumijeti što je mozak. Još nešto, ponekad znanost dovodi do značajnih društvenih i tehnoloških dobrobiti ili biznisa ili čega god što je proizašlo iz znanosti. I ovo je takav primjer jer kada shvatimo kako mozak funkcionira, bit ćemo sposobni napraviti inteligentne strojeve, što je po meni, globalno gledajući, dobra stvar, te će tako nešto imati ogromne prednosti za društvo, upravo poput fundamentalne tehnologije.
So why don't we have a good theory of brains? People have been working on it for 100 years. Let's first take a look at what normal science looks like. This is normal science. Normal science is a nice balance between theory and experimentalists. The theorist guy says, "I think this is what's going on," the experimentalist says, "You're wrong." It goes back and forth, this works in physics, this in geology. But if this is normal science, what does neuroscience look like? This is what neuroscience looks like. We have this mountain of data, which is anatomy, physiology and behavior. You can't imagine how much detail we know about brains. There were 28,000 people who went to the neuroscience conference this year, and every one of them is doing research in brains. A lot of data, but no theory. There's a little wimpy box on top there.
Zašto nemamo dobru teoriju o mozgu? A ljudi rade na njoj već 100 godina. Pogledajmo kako funkcionira normalna znanost. Ovo je normalna znanost. Normalna je znanost temeljena na dobro uravnoteženoj teoriji i praksi. Teoretičari kažu „mislimo da se tu događa ovo“, a eksperimentalisti kažu „u krivu ste“. I tako se izmjenjuju. Ovo funkcionira u fizici. U geologiji. Ali ako tako funkcionira normalna znanost kako funkcionira neuroznanost? Ona funkcionira ovako: imamo brdo podataka koje sačinjavaju anatomija, fiziologija i ponašanje. Ne možete niti pojmiti koliko detalja znamo o mozgu. Ove je godine 28.000 ljudi prisustvovalo neuroznanstvenoj konferenciji i svatko se od njih bavi istraživanjem mozga. Puno podataka. No, nema teorije. Samo beznačajni kvadratić ondje gore. Teorija nije imala nikakvu značajnu ulogu u neuroznanosti.
And theory has not played a role in any sort of grand way in the neurosciences. And it's a real shame. Now, why has this come about? If you ask neuroscientists why is this the state of affairs, first, they'll admit it. But if you ask them, they say, there's various reasons we don't have a good brain theory. Some say we still don't have enough data, we need more information, there's all these things we don't know. Well, I just told you there's data coming out of your ears. We have so much information, we don't even know how to organize it. What good is more going to do? Maybe we'll be lucky and discover some magic thing, but I don't think so. This is a symptom of the fact that we just don't have a theory. We don't need more data, we need a good theory.
Što je velika šteta. Zašto je tome tako? Ako pitate neuroznanstvenika zašto je tomu tako, najprije će to priznati. Ali ako ih pitate reći će da postoje brojni razlozi zašto nemamo dobru teoriju o mozgu. Neki će reći da nemamo dovoljno podataka, potrebno nam je još podataka, toliko toga još ne znamo. Upravo sam vam rekao da imate toliko podataka da vam izlaze na uši. Imamo toliko podataka da ne znamo kako bismo ih organizirali. Što će nam više podataka? Možda nam se posreći, pa pronađemo neko magično objašnjenje, ali sumnjam. Simptom je to nedostatka teorije. Ne treba nam još podataka, treba nam dobra teorija.
Another one is sometimes people say, "Brains are so complex, it'll take another 50 years." I even think Chris said something like this yesterday, something like, it's one of the most complicated things in the universe. That's not true -- you're more complicated than your brain. You've got a brain. And although the brain looks very complicated, things look complicated until you understand them. That's always been the case. So we can say, my neocortex, the part of the brain I'm interested in, has 30 billion cells. But, you know what? It's very, very regular. In fact, it looks like it's the same thing repeated over and over again. It's not as complex as it looks. That's not the issue.
Sljedeće što ljudi kažu jest da je mozak prekompliciran i da će nam trebati još 50 godina do teorije. Mislim da je Chris jučer rekao ovako nešto. Nisam siguran što si točno rekao Chris, ali rekao si nešto kao „to je jedna od najkompliciranijih stvari u svemiru“. To nije istina. Vi ste kompliciraniji od svojeg mozga. Vi imate mozak. Isto tako, iako se mozak čini vrlo kompliciranim, stvari su komplicirane sve dok ih ne razumijete. Uvijek je tako. Sve što možemo reći je da je moj neokorteks, onaj dio mozga koji me zanima, sačinjen od 30 milijardi stanica. Ali znate što? Iznimno je normalan. Zapravo, izgleda kao jedna te ista stvar nanovno i nanovo ponovljena. Nije toliko kompliciran kako izgleda. Nije u tome problem.
Some people say, brains can't understand brains. Very Zen-like. Woo.
Neki ljudi tvrde da „mozgovi ne mogu razumijeti mozgove“. Vrlo zen stajalište. Super. Zar ne –
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
You know, it sounds good, but why? I mean, what's the point? It's just a bunch of cells. You understand your liver. It's got a lot of cells in it too, right? So, you know, I don't think there's anything to that. And finally, some people say, "I don't feel like a bunch of cells -- I'm conscious. I've got this experience, I'm in the world. I can't be just a bunch of cells." Well, people used to believe there was a life force to be living, and we now know that's really not true at all. And there's really no evidence, other than that people just disbelieve that cells can do what they do. So some people have fallen into the pit of metaphysical dualism, some really smart people, too, but we can reject all that.
Zvuči dobro, ali zašto? Koja je svrha toga? Mozak je samo skupina stanica. Razumijete jetru. I ona se sastoji od stanica, zar ne? Zato ne mislim da je tome tako. I na kraju, neki ljudi kažu „znaš, ne osjećam se kao hrpa stanica. Svjestan sam. Imam svo to iskustvo, u svijetu sam, razumiješ. Ne mogu biti samo hrpa stanica“. Prije su ljudi vjerovali da je za život potrebna životna energija, sada znamo da to uopće nije točno. Ne postoje dokazi koji tvrde, osim ljudi koji ne vjeruju, da stanice ne mogu raditi ono što rade. Ako su neki ljudi zapali u rupu metafizičkog dualizma, uključujući i neke pametne ljude, mi to možemo pobiti.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
No, there's something else, something really fundamental, and it is: another reason why we don't have a good brain theory is because we have an intuitive, strongly held but incorrect assumption that has prevented us from seeing the answer. There's something we believe that just, it's obvious, but it's wrong. Now, there's a history of this in science and before I tell you what it is, I'll tell you about the history of it in science. Look at other scientific revolutions -- the solar system, that's Copernicus, Darwin's evolution, and tectonic plates, that's Wegener. They all have a lot in common with brain science.
Ne, reći ću vam da se radi o nečem drugom, nečem vrlo temeljnom, a to je sljedeće: postoji još jedan razlog nepostojanja dobre teorije o mozgu, a to je zbog toga što imamo intuitivnu, ustaljenu, ali netočnu pretpostavku koja nas sprečava da vidimo odgovor. Postoji nešto u što vjerujemo, što je očito, ali je krivo. Postoji povijest toga u znanosti i prije nego što vam kažem o čemu se radi, reći ću vam nešto o povijesti toga u znanosti. Pogledajte neke druge znanstvene revolucije, primjerice Kopernikov sunčev sustav, Darwinovu teoriju evolucije, Wagnerove tektonske ploče. Sve one imaju puno toga zajedničkog s teorijom mozga.
First, they had a lot of unexplained data. A lot of it. But it got more manageable once they had a theory. The best minds were stumped -- really smart people. We're not smarter now than they were then; it just turns out it's really hard to think of things, but once you've thought of them, it's easy to understand. My daughters understood these three theories, in their basic framework, in kindergarten. It's not that hard -- here's the apple, here's the orange, the Earth goes around, that kind of stuff.
Prvo, imale su puno neobjašnjenih podataka. Hrpe njih. Ali podaci su postali razumljiviji kada se razvila teorija. Najpametniji su ljudi bili zbunjeni, stvarno, stvarno pametni ljudi. Mi sada nismo ništa pametniji od njih tada. Ispada da je vrlo teško razmišljati o stvarima, ali kada jednom o njima promislite, nekako ih jednostavnije razumijete. Moje su kćeri razumijele ove tri teorije u njihovim temeljnim okvirima do trenutka kada su stigle u vrtić. I nije to tako teško, ovo je jabuka, ovo je narandža i Zemlja kruži oko Sunca, takve stvari.
Another thing is the answer was there all along, but we kind of ignored it because of this obvious thing. It was an intuitive, strongly held belief that was wrong. In the case of the solar system, the idea that the Earth is spinning, the surface is going a thousand miles an hour, and it's going through the solar system at a million miles an hour -- this is lunacy; we all know the Earth isn't moving. Do you feel like you're moving a thousand miles an hour? If you said Earth was spinning around in space and was huge -- they would lock you up, that's what they did back then.
I na kraju, odgovor je uvijek bio ovdje, ali smo ga ignorirali zbog te očite stvari, i u tome je stvar. Bilo je to intuitivno, čvrsto držano uvjerenje koje je krivo. U slučaju solarnog sustava, zamisao da se Zemlja vrti i da se površina Zemlje kreće tisuću milja na sat te da se Zemlja kreće sunčevim sustavom milijun milja na sat. To je ludo. Svi znamo da se Zemlja ne kreće. Imate li osjećaj da se krećete tisuću milja na sat? Naravno da ne. I netko tko bi rekao da se Zemlja vrti u svemiru koji je ogroman, zatvorili bi ga. Prije su to i radili.
So it was intuitive and obvious. Now, what about evolution?
(Smijeh) Bilo je intuitivno i očito. Što je s evolucijom?
Evolution, same thing. We taught our kids the Bible says God created all these species, cats are cats; dogs are dogs; people are people; plants are plants; they don't change. Noah put them on the ark in that order, blah, blah. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, we all have a common ancestor. We all have a common ancestor with the plant in the lobby! This is what evolution tells us. And it's true. It's kind of unbelievable. And the same thing about tectonic plates. All the mountains and the continents are kind of floating around on top of the Earth. It doesn't make any sense.
Ista stvar. Naučili smo djecu - u Bibliji piše da je Bog stvorio sve te vrste životinja, mačke su mačke, psi su psi, biljke su biljke, takve se stvari ne mijenjaju. Noa ih je stavio u arku tim redoslijedom, bla, bla, bla. Činjenica je da ako vjerujete u evoluciju tada svi imamo zajedničkog pretka i svi smo povezani zajedničkim pretkom s biljkom u predvorju. Evolucija nam to kaže. I to je istina. Nevjerojatno je. Isto je i s tektonskim pločama. Sve planine i kontinenti na neki način plutaju na Zemlji, znate? Nema to nikakvog smisla.
So what is the intuitive, but incorrect assumption, that's kept us from understanding brains? I'll tell you. It'll seem obvious that it's correct. That's the point. Then I'll make an argument why you're incorrect on the other assumption. The intuitive but obvious thing is: somehow, intelligence is defined by behavior; we're intelligent because of how we do things and how we behave intelligently. And I'm going to tell you that's wrong. Intelligence is defined by prediction.
Koja je to intuitivna, ali netočna pretpostavka koja nas priječi u razumijevanju mozga? Sada ću vam je reći i činit će se očitim kako je to ono točno, i u tome je stvar, zar ne? Nakon toga ću vam morati dokazati zašto ste u krivu što se tiče druge pretpostavke. Intuitivno, ali očito, je da je inteligencija određena ponašanjem; inteligentni smo zbog načina na koji radim stvari i inteligentnog ponašanja – reći ću vam kako je takvo mišljenje pogrešno. Inteligencija je određena predviđanjem. Proći ćemo kroz to pomoću nekoliko dijapozitiva,
I'm going to work you through this in a few slides, and give you an example of what this means. Here's a system. Engineers and scientists like to look at systems like this. They say, we have a thing in a box. We have its inputs and outputs. The AI people said, the thing in the box is a programmable computer, because it's equivalent to a brain. We'll feed it some inputs and get it to do something, have some behavior. Alan Turing defined the Turing test, which essentially says, we'll know if something's intelligent if it behaves identical to a human -- a behavioral metric of what intelligence is that has stuck in our minds for a long time.
dat ću vam primjere što to točno znači. Ovo je sustav. Inženjeri vole promatrati sustav na ovaj način. Znanstvenici na ovaj. Oni kažu – imamo stvar u kvadratu i imamo njezine unose i iznose. Ljudi koji se bave umjetnom inteligencijom rekoše „stvar u kvadratu je programirljivo računalo jer je to ekvivalent mozgu. Programirat ćemo neke unose i učinit ćemo ga da nešto radi, da se nekako ponaša“. Alan Turing je odredio Turingov test koji, u biti, tvrdi da ćemo znati je li nešto inteligentno ako se ponaša isto kao čovjek. To je bihevioralni metrični sustav inteligencije i to je ostalo dugo vremena u našem načinu razmišljanja.
Reality, though -- I call it real intelligence. Real intelligence is built on something else. We experience the world through a sequence of patterns, and we store them, and we recall them. When we recall them, we match them up against reality, and we're making predictions all the time. It's an internal metric; there's an internal metric about us, saying, do we understand the world, am I making predictions, and so on. You're all being intelligent now, but you're not doing anything. Maybe you're scratching yourself, but you're not doing anything. But you're being intelligent; you're understanding what I'm saying. Because you're intelligent and you speak English, you know the word at the end of this sentence.
Ja to zovem stvarna inteligencija. Stvarna se inteligencija temelji na nečem drugom. Mi svijet doživljavamo kroz niz obrazaca koje zatim pohranimo i kojih se prisjetimo. Kada ih se prisjetimo, uspoređujemo ih sa stvarnošću i putem njih neprestano predviđamo. To je vječni metrični sustav. U nama je takav metrični sustav koji nam govori razumijemo li svijet? Predviđam li? I tako dalje. Svi ste sada inteligentni bez da išta radite. Ne znam, možda se svrbite ili kopate nos, ali upravo sada ne radite ništa, ali jeste inteligentni, razumijete što vam sada govorim. Zbog toga što ste inteligentni i govorite engleski znate koja je riječ na kraju ove -- (Tišina) rečenice.
The word came to you; you make these predictions all the time. What I'm saying is, the internal prediction is the output in the neocortex, and somehow, prediction leads to intelligent behavior. Here's how that happens: Let's start with a non-intelligent brain. I'll argue a non-intelligent brain, we'll call it an old brain. And we'll say it's a non-mammal, like a reptile, say, an alligator; we have an alligator. And the alligator has some very sophisticated senses. It's got good eyes and ears and touch senses and so on, a mouth and a nose. It has very complex behavior. It can run and hide. It has fears and emotions. It can eat you. It can attack. It can do all kinds of stuff. But we don't consider the alligator very intelligent, not in a human sort of way.
Sjetili ste se riječi i takva predviđanja radite neprestano. Ono što tvrdim je da su takva neprestana predviđanja „output“ neokorteksa. Ta predviđanja nekako dovode do inteligentnog ponašanja. Evo kako se to događa. Počnimo s neinteligentnim mozgom. Tvrdit ćemo ovo s neinteligentnim mozgom, starim mozgom, koji nije poput mozga sisavaca, već je reptilski mozak, aligatorski, imamo mozak aligatora. Aligator ima vrlo sofisticirana osjetila. Ima vrlo dobar vid i sluh, osjetilo dodira i tako dalje, usta i nos. Ima složen način ponašanja. Može trčati i može se sakriti. Ima strahove i osjećaje. Može vas pojesti. Može napasti. Može svašta raditi. Ali aligatora ne smatramo vrlo inteligentnim, barem ne na ljudski način.
But it has all this complex behavior already. Now in evolution, what happened? First thing that happened in evolution with mammals is we started to develop a thing called the neocortex. I'm going to represent the neocortex by this box on top of the old brain. Neocortex means "new layer." It's a new layer on top of your brain. It's the wrinkly thing on the top of your head that got wrinkly because it got shoved in there and doesn't fit.
Ali već posjeduje svo to komplicirano ponašanje. Što se dogodilo tijekom evolucije? Prvo što se dogodilo tijekom evolucije kod sisavaca je to da smo razvili nešto što se zove neokorteks. Dočarat ću neokorteks pomoću ovog kvadrata koji se nalazi iznad starog mozga. Neokorteks znači novi sloj. To je novi sloj na našem mozgu. Ako ne znate, to je ono smežurano na vrhu vašeg mozga, smežurano je tako jer je ugurano unutra, a ne stane tamo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Literally, it's about the size of a table napkin and doesn't fit, so it's wrinkly. Now, look at how I've drawn this. The old brain is still there. You still have that alligator brain. You do. It's your emotional brain. It's all those gut reactions you have. On top of it, we have this memory system called the neocortex. And the memory system is sitting over the sensory part of the brain. So as the sensory input comes in and feeds from the old brain, it also goes up into the neocortex. And the neocortex is just memorizing. It's sitting there saying, I'm going to memorize all the things going on: where I've been, people I've seen, things I've heard, and so on. And in the future, when it sees something similar to that again, in a similar environment, or the exact same environment, it'll start playing it back: "Oh, I've been here before," and when you were here before, this happened next. It allows you to predict the future. It literally feeds back the signals into your brain; they'll let you see what's going to happen next, will let you hear the word "sentence" before I said it. And it's this feeding back into the old brain that will allow you to make more intelligent decisions.
Ne, stvarno je to to. Približno je veličine salvete. Kako ne stane, sav je zgužvan. Pogledajte kako sam nacrtao ovo. Stari je mozak još uvijek ondje. Još uvijek imate aligatorski mozak. Da, imate. To je vaš emocionalan mozak. On je sve one stvari, sve one intuitivne reakcije koje imate. Povrh toga imamo memorijski sustav koji se zove neokorteks. Memorijski se dio nalazi iznad osjetilnog dijela mozga. Osjetilni unos dolazi i dobiva informacije od starog mozga te odlazi u neokorteks. Neokorteks samo pamti. Sjedi ondje i misli „zapamtit ću sve što se događa, gdje sam bio, ljude koje sam vidio, stvari koje sam čuo i tako dalje“. I kada u budućnosti naiđe na nešto slično u sličnom okruženju ili posve istom okruženju, prisjetit će se starog doživljaja. Počet će ga ponovno doživljavati. „Oh, već sam bio ovdje. I kada si prošli put bio ovdje sljedeće se dogodilo ovo“. Omogućuje vam predviđanje budućnosti. Doslovno vraća signale u mozak i omogućuje da vidite ono što će se sljedeće dogoditi, omogućit će da čujete riječ „rečenica“ prije nego što vam je kažem. Upravo ovo vraćanje podataka u stari mozak je ono što vam omogućuje da donosite vrlo inteligentne odluke.
This is the most important slide of my talk, so I'll dwell on it a little. And all the time you say, "Oh, I can predict things," so if you're a rat and you go through a maze, and you learn the maze, next time you're in one, you have the same behavior. But suddenly, you're smarter; you say, "I recognize this maze, I know which way to go; I've been here before; I can envision the future." That's what it's doing. This is true for all mammals -- in humans, it got a lot worse. Humans actually developed the front of the neocortex, called the anterior part of the neocortex. And nature did a little trick. It copied the posterior, the back part, which is sensory, and put it in the front. Humans uniquely have the same mechanism on the front, but we use it for motor control.
Ovo je najvažniji dijapozitiv mog govora, pa ću se malo zadržati na njemu. Cijelo si vrijeme govorite „super, mogu predviđati stvari“. Da ste štakor i da prolazite kroz labirint, a zatim zapamtite labirint, sljedeći put kada ste u labirintu imate isti obrazac ponašanja, ali ste odjednom pametniji jer mislite „pa ja prepoznajem ovaj labirint, znam kuda trebam ići. Već sam bio ovdje, mogu predočiti budućnost“. To radi neokorteks. Kod ljudi, usput, i kod svih sisavaca, postalo je malo gore. Ljudi su razvili prednji dio neokorteksa koji se zove anteriorni dio neokorteksa. Priroda se malo našalila. Kopirala je posteriorni dio, stražnji dio, koji je osjetilni, i stavila ga naprijed. Ljudi su jedinstveni jer imaju isti mehanizam sprijeda, ali ga koristimo za motoriku.
So we're now able to do very sophisticated motor planning, things like that. I don't have time to explain, but to understand how a brain works, you have to understand how the first part of the mammalian neocortex works, how it is we store patterns and make predictions. Let me give you a few examples of predictions. I already said the word "sentence." In music, if you've heard a song before, when you hear it, the next note pops into your head already -- you anticipate it. With an album, at the end of a song, the next song pops into your head. It happens all the time, you make predictions.
Zbog toga smo sposobni planirati sofisticirane motorne vještine i takve stvari. Nemam se vremena baviti time, ali ako želite znati kako mozak funkcionira morate razumjeti kako funkcionira prednji dio neokorteksa kod sisavaca, način na koji pohranjujemo obrasce i predviđamo događaje. Evo nekoliko primjera predviđanja. Već sam objasnio onaj primjer s riječi „rečenica“. U glazbi ako ste pjesmu čuli prije, ako ste čuli nekoga da te pjesme već izvodi, kada ih taj netko pjeva, sljedeća vam nota već padne na pamet -- anticipirate ju kako slušate pjesmu. Ako se radi o glazbenom albumu, na kraju jednog albuma sljedeća će vam pjesma pasti na pamet. Takve se stvari neprestano događaju. Vi radite ova predviđanja.
I have this thing called the "altered door" thought experiment. It says, you have a door at home; when you're here, I'm changing it -- I've got a guy back at your house right now, moving the door around, moving your doorknob over two inches. When you go home tonight, you'll put your hand out, reach for the doorknob, notice it's in the wrong spot and go, "Whoa, something happened." It may take a second, but something happened. I can change your doorknob in other ways -- make it larger, smaller, change its brass to silver, make it a lever, I can change the door; put colors on, put windows in. I can change a thousand things about your door and in the two seconds you take to open it, you'll notice something has changed.
Razvio sam pokus koji se zove misaoni eksperiment promijenjenih vrata. On glasi, imate vrata kod kuće, a kada ste ovdje ja ću ih promijeniti, imam svog čovjeka u vašoj kući koji miče vrata uokolo; uzet ću vašu kvaku i pomaknuti ju pet centimetara. Kada se navečer vratite kući i ispružite ruku, posegnut ćete za kvakom i primijetiti da je na krivom mjestu i reći ćete „hej, nešto se dogodilo“. Možda će vam trebati sekunda kako biste shvatili što, ali nešto se dogodilo. Mogao bih promijeniti vašu kvaku na druge načine. Mogao bih ju povećati ili smanjiti, promijeniti iz mjedene u srebrnu, mogao bih ju zamijeniti ručkom. Mogu promijeniti vaša vrata, obojati ih, staviti prozore na njih. Mogu promijeniti tisuću stvari na njima i u dvije sekunde, koliko vam je potrebno za otvaranje vrata, primijetit ćete da se nešto promijenilo.
Now, the engineering approach, the AI approach to this, is to build a door database with all the door attributes. And as you go up to the door, we check them off one at time: door, door, color ... We don't do that. Your brain doesn't do that. Your brain is making constant predictions all the time about what will happen in your environment. As I put my hand on this table, I expect to feel it stop. When I walk, every step, if I missed it by an eighth of an inch, I'll know something has changed. You're constantly making predictions about your environment. I'll talk about vision, briefly. This is a picture of a woman. When we look at people, our eyes saccade over two to three times a second. We're not aware of it, but our eyes are always moving. When we look at a face, we typically go from eye to eye to nose to mouth. When your eye moves from eye to eye, if there was something else there like a nose, you'd see a nose where an eye is supposed to be and go, "Oh, shit!"
Inženjerski pristup ovome, pristup umjetne inteligencije, je da se napravi baza podataka s vratima, koja će imati sve atribute vrata. Kako se približavate vratima, atributi se eliminiraju jedan po jedan. Vrata, vrata, vrata, boja, znate o čemu pričam. Mi to ne radimo. Vaš mozak to ne radi. Ono što on radi je neprestano predviđa što će se sljedeće dogoditi u vašem okruženju. Kada stavim ruku na ovaj stol, očekujem da će ju stol zaustaviti. Kada hodam, svaki korak, ako ga promašim za samo centimetar, znat ću da se nešto promijenilo. Neprestano radite predviđanja o svojem okruženju. Kratko ću govoriti o percepciji. Ovo je fotografija žene. Kada promatrate ljude vaše oči prelaze preko njih dva do tri puta u sekundi. Vi toga niste svjesni, ali oči vam se neprestano miču. Kada gledate nečije lice obično se krećete od oka do oka do oka do nosa do usta. Kada se vaše oko kreće od oka do oka, ako bi tamo bilo nešto drugo, poput nosa, vidjeli biste nos na mjestu predviđenom za oko,
(Laughter)
ostali biste iznenađeni --
"There's something wrong about this person." That's because you're making a prediction. It's not like you just look over and say, "What am I seeing? A nose? OK." No, you have an expectation of what you're going to see.
(Smijeh) Nešto nije u redu s ovom osobom. To je zbog toga što predviđate. Nije da samo pogledate prema tamo i kažete „što sada gledam“? Nos, to je u redu. Ne, imate očekivanje onoga što ćete vidjeti.
(Smijeh)
Every single moment. And finally, let's think about how we test intelligence. We test it by prediction: What is the next word in this ...? This is to this as this is to this. What is the next number in this sentence? Here's three visions of an object. What's the fourth one? That's how we test it. It's all about prediction.
Svaki trenutak. I na kraju, razmislimo o tome kako mjerimo inteligenciju. Mjerimo ju putem predviđanja. Koja je sljedeća riječ? Ovo je prema ovome kao ovo prema ovome. Koji je sljedeći broj u ovoj rečenici? Ovo su tri vida objekta. Što je ovaj četvrti? Tako testiramo inteligenciju. Sve je u predviđanju. Koji je recept za teoriju mozga?
So what is the recipe for brain theory? First of all, we have to have the right framework. And the framework is a memory framework, not a computational or behavior framework, it's a memory framework. How do you store and recall these sequences of patterns? It's spatiotemporal patterns.
Prije svega, potreban nam je dobar okvir. To je memorijski okvir, ne računalni ili bihevioralni okvir. Memorijski okvir. Način na koji pohranjujete i na koji se prisjećate ovih scena i obrazaca? Radi se o prostorno-vremenskim obrascima. Zatim, u tu teoriju okvira stavite hrpu teoretičara.
Then, if in that framework, you take a bunch of theoreticians -- biologists generally are not good theoreticians. Not always, but generally, there's not a good history of theory in biology. I've found the best people to work with are physicists, engineers and mathematicians, who tend to think algorithmically. Then they have to learn the anatomy and the physiology. You have to make these theories very realistic in anatomical terms. Anyone who tells you their theory about how the brain works and doesn't tell you exactly how it's working and how the wiring works -- it's not a theory.
Biolozi uglavnom nisu dobri teoretičari. To nije uvijek istina, ali općenito govoreći, ne postoji dobra povijest teorije u biologiji. Otkrio sam kako je najbolje raditi s fizičarima, inženjerima i matematičarima jer su skloni algoritmičnom razmišljanju. Zatim moraju naučiti anatomiju i fiziologiju. Ove teorije moraju biti iznimno realistične u anatomskom smislu. Svatko tko vam kaže svoju teoriju o tome kako mozak funkcionira, ali ne i kako sve točno radi u mozgu i kako veze funkcioniraju u mozgu, ta osoba zapravo ne priča o teoriji. Ovime se bavimo u neuroznanstvenom inistitutu Redwood.
And that's what we do at the Redwood Neuroscience Institute. I'd love to tell you we're making fantastic progress in this thing, and I expect to be back on this stage sometime in the not too distant future, to tell you about it. I'm really excited; this is not going to take 50 years.
Volio bih imati više vremena kako bih vam ispričao kakav smo izvanredni napredak postigli u ovom polju, očekujem da ću se vratiti na ovu pozornicu, možda neki drugi put u ne tako dalekoj budućnosti i tada ću vam ispričati o tome. Vrlo sam uzbuđen. Ovo neće trajati niti 50 godina.
What will brain theory look like? First of all, it's going to be about memory. Not like computer memory -- not at all like computer memory. It's very different. It's a memory of very high-dimensional patterns, like the things that come from your eyes. It's also memory of sequences: you cannot learn or recall anything outside of a sequence. A song must be heard in sequence over time, and you must play it back in sequence over time. And these sequences are auto-associatively recalled, so if I see something, I hear something, it reminds me of it, and it plays back automatically. It's an automatic playback. And prediction of future inputs is the desired output. And as I said, the theory must be biologically accurate, it must be testable and you must be able to build it. If you don't build it, you don't understand it.
Kako će izgledati teorija o mozgu? Prije svega, bit će to teorija o memoriji. Ne poput računalne memorije. Ništa nalik na računalnu memoriju, već vrlo vrlo drugačije. Radi se o memoriji ovakvih visoko-dimenzijonalnih obrazaca, poput onoga što vidite očima. Radi se o memoriji slijedova. Ne možete naučiti nešto niti se prisjetiti nečega izvan slijeda. Pjesma se mora čuti u slijedu tijekom vremena i morate ju ponovno pustiti u slijedu tijekom vremena. Slijedova se auto-asocijativno prisjećamo; ako nešto vidimo, nešto čujemo ili nas podsjeti na nešto, ono se automatski povrati. To je automatski „playback“. Predviđanje budućih unosa je željeni iznos. Kao što sam rekao, teorija mora biti biološki točna, mora se dati testirati i izgraditi. Ako ju ne možemo izgraditi, ne možemo ju niti razumijeti. Još jedan dijapozitiv.
One more slide. What is this going to result in? Are we going to really build intelligent machines? Absolutely. And it's going to be different than people think. No doubt that it's going to happen, in my mind. First of all, we're going to build this stuff out of silicon. The same techniques we use to build silicon computer memories, we can use here. But they're very different types of memories. And we'll attach these memories to sensors, and the sensors will experience real-live, real-world data, and learn about their environment.
Što će biti rezultat toga? Hoćemo li stvarno stvarati inteligentne strojeve? Sasvim sigurno. Bit će drugačiji od onoga što ljudi zamišljaju. Bez sumnje će se to dogoditi. Bit će izgrađen od silikona. Istu tehniku koju koristimo za silikonske računalne memorije možemo iskoristiti i ovdje. No, to su sasvim drugačiji oblici memorije. Te ćemo memorije spojiti sa senzorima, a oni će doživljavati stvarne podatke, i tako će učiti o svom okruženju.
Now, it's very unlikely the first things you'll see are like robots. Not that robots aren't useful; people can build robots. But the robotics part is the hardest part. That's old brain. That's really hard. The new brain is easier than the old brain. So first we'll do things that don't require a lot of robotics. So you're not going to see C-3PO. You're going to see things more like intelligent cars that really understand what traffic is, what driving is and have learned that cars with the blinkers on for half a minute probably aren't going to turn.
Malo je vjerojatno da će prvi takvi strojevi nalikovati robotima. Ne da roboti nisu korisni i ljudi mogu graditi robote. Ali robotika je najteži dio. To je stari mozak. To je stvarno teško. Zapravo, novi je mozak na neki način jednostavniji od starog mozga. Prvo ćemo napraviti stvari za koje nije potrebno puno robotike. Nećete vidjeti C-3PO-a. Prije ćete vidjeti nešto poput inteligentnih automobila koji stvarno razumiju što je promet i što je vožnja i koji će znati da određeni automobili, koji imaju pola minute uključen pokazivač smjera, vrlo vjerojatno neće skrenuti, takve stvari.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We can also do intelligent security systems. Anytime we're basically using our brain but not doing a lot of mechanics -- those are the things that will happen first. But ultimately, the world's the limit. I don't know how this will turn out. I know a lot of people who invented the microprocessor. And if you talk to them, they knew what they were doing was really significant, but they didn't really know what was going to happen. They couldn't anticipate cell phones and the Internet and all this kind of stuff. They just knew like, "We're going to build calculators and traffic-light controllers. But it's going to be big!" In the same way, brain science and these memories are going to be a very fundamental technology, and it will lead to unbelievable changes in the next 100 years. And I'm most excited about how we're going to use them in science. So I think that's all my time -- I'm over, and I'm going to end my talk right there.
Možemo napraviti inteligentne sustave sigurnosti. Bavit ćemo se gotovo bilo kojim područjem u kojem koristimo mozak, ali ne i puno mehanike. Takve će se stvari prve dogoditi. Ali, na kraju krajeva, svijet je granica. Ne znam kako će to završiti. Znam mnogo ljudi koji su izumili mikroprocesor i kada razgovarate s njima znali su da rade nešto vrlo značajno, ali zapravo nisu znali što će se dogoditi. Nisu mogli anticipirati mobitele, Internet i sve te stvari. Znali su da će napraviti kalkulatore i kontrole semafora. Bit će to velika stvar. Ovo je nalik na znanost o mozgu i ove će memorije biti vrlo temeljna tehnologija koja će dovesti do nevjerojatnih promjena u sljedećih 100 godina. Vrlo sam uzbuđen zbog načina na koji će se korisiti u znanosti. Mislim da je ovo kraj moga vremena, premašio sam ga, ovdje ću završiti sa svojim govorom.