Alexander Bates

528 posts

Alexander Bates banner
Alexander Bates

Alexander Bates

@as_bates

#neuroscience #connectomics #natverse @harvardmed w/ @RachelIreneWils. Past: @MRC_LMB w/ @gsxej, @CamZoology, @flyconnectome. Distant past: @uclnpp. https://t.co/0eZdKDZ8CD

Cambridge, England Katılım Temmuz 2016
708 Takip Edilen688 Takipçiler
Alexander Bates retweetledi
Sebastian Seung
Sebastian Seung@SebastianSeung·
TL;DR: “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” 😊
Kenneth Hayworth@KennethHayworth

So, some people are asking me why this EON fly video doesn’t show real ‘uploading’ since it does simulate a real connectome. The most important reason is that the functional parameters that define the dynamic behavior of individual neuron and synapse types in the connectome are unknown. Instead, they used an existing model (nature.com/articles/s4158…) which substitutes these with guessed parameters and grossly simplified dynamics. As made clear in that older paper, these are not sufficient to recreate the activity patterns that would be seen in the real fly. The simplified dynamics would not, for example, be able to choreograph the timing of leg muscles during walking or grooming, or the dynamics of the compass neurons encoding the fly’s heading direction, or the myriad other neuronal dynamics that make up the fly ‘mind’. So not an ‘upload’ by any reasonable definition. In fact, the simplified dynamics they used have only been demonstrated to approximate gross correlations along major sensory-motor pathways for a handful of neurons. For example: activating a sugar sensing neuron causes gross downstream activation that elevates the activity of feeding neurons. It is this handful of very, very crude and basic correlations in the simulated connectome that are being used to drive the EON simulated fly. If they had said that from the start, then I would have had no issue. But instead, they made the bold claim that they had “uploaded a fly” and presented a video of said fly walking over a landscape with highly articulate legs, visually navigating through the terrain to a food source, grooming its antenna with eerily fly-like leg motions, etc. Any reasonable layperson would assume that these visually exciting articulations are the ones being controlled by the simulated brain’s dynamics instead of being faked by computational add-on routines. There are now many secondary reports of this on YouTube and all of them seem to make this reasonable assumption (e.g. youtube.com/shorts/Z7NNP1Z…). And who could blame them? Many neuroscientists also made that assumption before EON started to spell out what was really behind the video millions of views and over a day later. To make clearer just how misleading EON Systems’ video is and how outlandishly laughable their ‘uploading’ claim is, below is an imagined back-and-forth discussion between a [Reasonable Layperson] and a [Neuroscientist] trying to explain to them what is really behind the video: [Reasonable Layperson] “Look at the complicated leg motions as the fly walks… the timing of all those dozens of individual muscles being controlled by the dynamics of the simulated neurons… and they say that they used no reinforcement learning to tune parameters, just the connectome… that is really impressive!” [Neuroscientist] “Well actually no… those leg movements are actually coming from a program unrelated to the connectome. The connectome used didn’t even include the central pattern generator circuits in the ventral nerve cord responsible for controlling leg muscles.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… so in what sense is the simulated connectome controlling walking?” [Neuroscientist] “It looks like they just found a few neurons in the brain connectome that are correlated with right/left/forward motion and used these to ‘steer’ the pretend walking routine.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… But the activations of those ‘steering’ neurons are reflecting the complicated dynamics of tens of thousands of simulated neurons in the fly visual system as it moves through the virtual world, avoiding objects and heading toward its visual goal, right?” [Neuroscientist] “Well actually no … The visual system and virtual world are essentially ‘decoration’… the flashing dynamic neural responses as the fly moves through the virtual environment are designed to give the viewer the impression that the simulated fly is actually seeing the world and making walking decisions based on those visual responses. But, in fact, they could turn off the lights and the fly would behave identically.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… so how does the fly walk toward the food then?” [Neuroscientist] “Well… it looks like they simply imposed an odor gradient in the virtual environment that is centered on the virtual food. The fly has two sets of odor receptors (right and left) that sense this gradient and the activation of these in the connectome is correlated with the activation of the ‘steering’ neurons. So if the left odor neuron activates more than the right then the fly steers left.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… so it is like one of those toy cars that moves toward a light because it has right and left light sensors cross-connected to right and left motors… Gee, I thought a fly was more complicated than that.” [Neuroscientist] “Well actually a real fly is. Real flies have dozens of behavioral states that allow intelligent behavior in a complicated visual and sensory environment. In fact, a real fly contains a set of neurons which act as an internal compass updated by the visual environment and the fly’s walking.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… and their connectome has those internal compass neurons?” [Neuroscientist] “Yes. They used the full brain connectome that contains those compass neurons.” [Reasonable Layperson] “...And their compass neuron activations are tracking the visual environment just like in the real fly?” [Neuroscientist] “Oh sweet summer child… those compass neurons exist in their connectome simulation, but no one knows enough about their functional parameters (synaptic weights, time constants, etc.) to simulate them accurately. They light up in pretty patterns totally unrelated to how they would in a real fly walking through that visual world.” [Reasonable Layperson] “Oh… and the complicated leg movements it shows during antenna grooming… is that also just a faked recording?” [Neuroscientist] “Yes. All the complicated leg motions shown during grooming are faked by a hard-coded program. But they turn that fake routine on or off by looking at some neurons in the connectome that are correlated with actual grooming behavior triggered by dust accumulation on the antenna… well really they fake the dust too by just activating a set of neurons after a delay.” [Reasonable Layperson] “And what did EON Systems do? Did they acquire the connectome? Did they determine the neurotransmitter types? Did they do the calcium imaging experiments to determine the steering and grooming neurons? Did they make the mechanical fly model?” [Neuroscientist] “No. Those were all done by real labs who were kind enough to carefully write up their results in open journals and to post their results and code openly online…. It looks like Eon Systems just took their code and put it together with a virtual environment designed specifically to trick viewers by triggering behaviors in misleading ways.”

English
1
8
70
8.5K
Alexander Bates retweetledi
Andreas Tolias Lab @ Stanford University
Important reminder: structure alone is not enough. Understanding neural computation requires measuring the dynamics of neural circuits during natural behavior.
Kenneth Hayworth@KennethHayworth

My statement regarding the misleading EON Systems “fly upload” video: The hundreds of researchers who make up the Drosophila neuroscience community are making good progress toward eventually understanding how the intelligent behaviors of a fruit fly are produced by computations in its neural circuits. Obtaining the structural connectome of the fly brain and ventral nerve cord was a significant milestone in that quest, as was obtaining an estimate of neurotransmitter types for each cell type. What is currently most lacking is a catalog of the precise electrophysiological and molecular dynamics of each neuron and synapse type. Dozens of on-going electrophysiological, genetic, and behavioral experiments are beginning to fill in those details. But completing that task will likely take many years, possibly decades, of more research. At the end of that long road, I have no doubt, there will be a detailed paper, published in a high-quality journal with full details and carefully peer-reviewed, which will at long last make the true statement “we’ve uploaded a fruit fly”. And that future paper will have a supplementary video much like the EON Systems one, showing a fly navigating a virtual environment. But, unlike the misleading EON Systems video, that future video will be real… all 100,000+ neurons displaying dynamics that reflect those that would occur in the real fly engaged in the same sensory-motor behaviors. That paper will represent the crowning achievement of a successful Drosophila neuroscience field. What EON Systems’ misleading video and claim has done today is to try to steal that future victory and take its valor for their own, all in the hopes of raising some cash from naive investors who think they might get to human uploads soon, and all while riding a tide of hype they generated in the gullible public. The result has been a wave of secondary reporting that grossly mischaracterizes the current state of neuroscience progress, implying that it is much further along than it currently is. As a member of the Drosophila research community, and as a long-term advocate of brain preservation for eventual mind uploading, I feel it is my responsibility to call out this reprehensible behavior. Neuroscience technology is progressing fast enough that we are now able to obtain structural connectomes of small organisms like the fruit fly. But neuroscience understanding is progressing much more slowly. True uploading, even for a fruit fly, is likely years to decades away. Even obtaining a mouse connectome seems likely to be a decade or more away. Human uploading is simply not on any reasonable research or investment timeline, unless such a timeline includes many decades of methodical basic neuroscience research. Of course, we can preserve human brains today using aldehyde fixatives as is done in all of today’s connectomics studies. But we will not be able to upload a human brain for many decades, perhaps centuries to come. Please do not let today’s real scientific progress in connectomics and brain preservation be drowned out by misleading hype. -Kenneth Hayworth

English
3
8
68
7.1K
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
@KennethHayworth Thank you @KennethHayworth. Scientific leadership should include calling out others for gross misrepresentation. I’m genuinely disappointed that I have not seen much of this, in fact mainly the opposite, on this topic.
English
0
0
5
344
Alexander Bates retweetledi
Kenneth Hayworth
Kenneth Hayworth@KennethHayworth·
My statement regarding the misleading EON Systems “fly upload” video: The hundreds of researchers who make up the Drosophila neuroscience community are making good progress toward eventually understanding how the intelligent behaviors of a fruit fly are produced by computations in its neural circuits. Obtaining the structural connectome of the fly brain and ventral nerve cord was a significant milestone in that quest, as was obtaining an estimate of neurotransmitter types for each cell type. What is currently most lacking is a catalog of the precise electrophysiological and molecular dynamics of each neuron and synapse type. Dozens of on-going electrophysiological, genetic, and behavioral experiments are beginning to fill in those details. But completing that task will likely take many years, possibly decades, of more research. At the end of that long road, I have no doubt, there will be a detailed paper, published in a high-quality journal with full details and carefully peer-reviewed, which will at long last make the true statement “we’ve uploaded a fruit fly”. And that future paper will have a supplementary video much like the EON Systems one, showing a fly navigating a virtual environment. But, unlike the misleading EON Systems video, that future video will be real… all 100,000+ neurons displaying dynamics that reflect those that would occur in the real fly engaged in the same sensory-motor behaviors. That paper will represent the crowning achievement of a successful Drosophila neuroscience field. What EON Systems’ misleading video and claim has done today is to try to steal that future victory and take its valor for their own, all in the hopes of raising some cash from naive investors who think they might get to human uploads soon, and all while riding a tide of hype they generated in the gullible public. The result has been a wave of secondary reporting that grossly mischaracterizes the current state of neuroscience progress, implying that it is much further along than it currently is. As a member of the Drosophila research community, and as a long-term advocate of brain preservation for eventual mind uploading, I feel it is my responsibility to call out this reprehensible behavior. Neuroscience technology is progressing fast enough that we are now able to obtain structural connectomes of small organisms like the fruit fly. But neuroscience understanding is progressing much more slowly. True uploading, even for a fruit fly, is likely years to decades away. Even obtaining a mouse connectome seems likely to be a decade or more away. Human uploading is simply not on any reasonable research or investment timeline, unless such a timeline includes many decades of methodical basic neuroscience research. Of course, we can preserve human brains today using aldehyde fixatives as is done in all of today’s connectomics studies. But we will not be able to upload a human brain for many decades, perhaps centuries to come. Please do not let today’s real scientific progress in connectomics and brain preservation be drowned out by misleading hype. -Kenneth Hayworth
English
14
62
304
37.5K
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
@micahgallen No, they didn’t do that. They piped together various big fly data projects to produce stimulus driven activations + a classifier + pre-trained fly movements in a physics simulation.
English
0
0
2
31
Michael Andregg
Michael Andregg@michaelandregg·
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. 🧵
English
332
1.3K
8K
1.7M
Alexander Bates retweetledi
Ryan Morey
Ryan Morey@RyanMorey·
So Eon put out a more detailed blog post, my takeaways: Vision inputs are based on (Lappalainen, 2024) (connectome-constrained model trained on an optic flow task) and are "somewhat 'decorative'" and "do not currently substantially influence our behavioral outputs" Walking uses "slight modifications to existing NeuroMechFly controllers, trained to imitate the walking behavior of the fly" so, imitation learning, not connectome-driven Brain-body mappings "can be somewhat arbitrarily chosen by hand (as is our case)" "Best understood as a research platform and a demonstration platform" "Should not yet be interpreted as a proof that structure alone is sufficient" I think this is cool work ! bringing together several existing projects in a sensible way, but I have to say the announcement was premature and insufficiently detailed Their detailed write-up: eon.systems/updates/embodi…
English
8
40
334
85.3K
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
@LeoBreston @ThomasMiconi @michaelandregg @Philip_Shiu The CEO reports "91% accuracy" for behaviour. This is the % of times Shiu's model gets the binary activation of one proboscis motor neuron "correct" versus ground truth from the wet-lab, as reported in Shiu et al. 2024. I don't think it has anything to do with Eon-specific work.
English
0
0
6
187
Leo Breston
Leo Breston@LeoBreston·
@as_bates @ThomasMiconi @michaelandregg @Philip_Shiu Yep it could just be a dice roll and by their def they’d call it “emergent behavior”. I’m medium pissed because now all the brain uploading ppl will think this is real and it will take forever to unwind the epistemic damage
English
1
1
10
463
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
.@michaelandregg @Philip_Shiu I’ve worked on the fly connectome 10 yrs. Good-faith questions: Do you have known internal dynamics: head-direction ring attractor bump (working memory)? "Spinal cord" analogue not modelled, so behaviour is "descending neuron X on, play animation"?
Michael Andregg@michaelandregg

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. 🧵

English
3
7
89
10.7K
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
@LeoBreston @ThomasMiconi @michaelandregg @Philip_Shiu NeuroMechFly is RL trained, so I think you are right. A classifier looking at connectome neuron activations is selecting bottled NMF behaviours. Even if you randomly moved between these bottled behaviours it would look “fly-like”.
English
1
1
9
535
Alexander Bates
Alexander Bates@as_bates·
@ThomasMiconi @michaelandregg @Philip_Shiu Indeed. But it’s not clear what Eon have done here. The paper is not work by Eon, though they use that model. There should be standards for claims for ‘emulating’ the whole fly brain, and I feel observing the classic heading bump ought to be one.
English
1
1
16
1.1K