I very much Blake's ideas here, because The Brain 🧠 is so big it is undercontrained as an inspiration, so we need to zoom in to make any real inroads. The problem I've experienced in neuromorphic and I see in NeuroAI is that these fields want to abstract from the biophysics and anatomy very quickly

Yeah. Benchmarks are huge for regular AI, but people forget that CNNs and Transformers blossomed in old fields like computer vision with at times decades old benchmarks. It doesn't make sense in neuro. If people aren't trying to do the same thing, benchmarks only marginalize other people's work

All well and good until the ground starts shaking underneath you... i never liked that feeling...

This is all sorts of fun.

Of course, it is quite rare to find anything truly "new" in the brain - either experimental or theoretical. So when that happens it makes sense that the wake will be broad regardless of what type of work it was.

I was in Rusty's lab for my PhD, and based all my computational work on those early neurogenesis papers. What's notable there is that while most of that work was anatomy and behavior; neurogenesis was a novel dynamic in the brain. So people at all research scales could run with it (no pun intended)

The worst thing about these Arctic blasts - and there is a lot wrong about cold weather - is having to see educated people spell it "Artic"

So you're saying the "brain is not a computer" crowd killed Twitter? I can buy it.

I was just thinking that Bluesky needed some brain is a computer fighting to reignite the neuro discussion

There is a great value in thinking about how to communicate science to the broader public. Physics is easiest though because the "We don't know" boundary is very clear and agreed on. Neuroscience, my field of sorts, has a big problem in that the "We don't know" boundary is literally everywhere.