Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom) header
Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom) profile picture

Linguist and neuroscientist trained at Harvard. AI & comm expert, looking at the sky for ETs. I love physics, and mountaineering. And many things in between.

Cambridge MA
Joined May 2014
Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)Photo by Shantanu Ghosh (@docile_atom)
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Cognitive computational neuroscience nature.com/articles/s41593-0… 1/ Move beyond brain mapping. Mapping which brain regions activate during a task is not enough to explain cognition. We need computational models that reproduce behavior and explain how neural activity generates perception, learning, decision-making, and action. The goal is to understand the mechanism, not just the location. 2/ Build models that perform cognitive tasks. Allen Newell argued that understanding cognition requires constructing systems that actually perform the functions we want to explain. A theory of decision-making, for example, should predict choices under different conditions—not merely describe them verbally. Simulations help test whether proposed mechanisms work together to produce intelligent behavior. 3/ Integrate three disciplines. Cognitive science explains the computations underlying thought; computational neuroscience investigates how neural circuits implement those computations; AI develops algorithms that perform complex tasks. Each provides different constraints. Combining them could produce models that are simultaneously behaviorally effective, computationally explicit, and biologically grounded. 4/ Neural networks are a bridge between brains and AI. Deep neural networks learn hierarchical representations that can resemble those observed in biological sensory systems. Research has shown that networks trained for object recognition can predict aspects of visual cortical representations. However, predictive similarity does not prove that the brain uses the same algorithms. Models must also be tested against neural and behavioral evidence. 5/ Biological neurons offer more than artificial units. Most conventional artificial neural networks use simplified units that combine inputs and apply nonlinear transformations. Biological neurons exhibit action potentials, dendritic computations, recurrent signaling, oscillations, and complex temporal dynamics. Incorporating these features into task-performing models may reveal computational principles that simpler AI architectures overlook. 6/ Neural decoding is not a complete explanation. Decoding asks what information can be extracted from neural activity. Encoding models predict neural responses; representational similarity analysis compares patterns of activity; connectivity models examine interactions. These methods constrain theories, but they do not necessarily explain how the brain transforms information to solve a task. Mechanistic models must connect representations to computation and behavior. 7/ Bayesian inference offers a theory of perception and reasoning. The brain must interpret noisy sensory information using prior knowledge about the world. Bayesian models formalize this process by combining prior beliefs with incoming evidence. Generative models go further by representing how hidden causes produce observations. They offer a framework for studying uncertainty, causal reasoning, concept formation, and the ability to learn from limited experience. 8/ Learning and control require multiple strategies. Reinforcement learning provides a framework for understanding how actions and feedback shape future behavior. Model-free approaches learn values or policies from experience; model-based approaches use an internal model to evaluate possible outcomes; episodic approaches reuse specific past experiences. Understanding how biological brains combine these strategies could inform more adaptive AI systems. 9/ Combine bottom-up and top-down approaches. Bottom-up neuroscience begins with neurons, circuits, and measured activity. Top-down approaches begin with a cognitive function and ask what computations are required to perform it. Neither is sufficient alone. Strong theories should explain how biological mechanisms support meaningful behavior—and use behavioral requirements to identify which neural mechanisms matter. 10/ The future is an integrated NeuroAI. A major challenge is to connect three levels: computational goals, representations and algorithms, and neurobiological implementation. This requires collaboration across neuroscience, cognitive science, mathematics, and AI, along with shared datasets, models, tasks, and evaluation methods. The ultimate ambition is to build systems that perform intelligent tasks while explaining how brains learn, represent knowledge, and adapt. The big idea: The next leap in AI and neuroscience may come from treating the brain not simply as a source of data, but as a system whose computational principles can be tested through models that connect neural mechanisms to intelligent behavior.
11
70
2
329
16,097
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Spectacular Nature piece on why AI is not conscious and probably will never be. Three arguments: 1) Intelligence is not consciousness. Intelligence is about solving problems. Consciousness is about having subjective experiences. AlphaFold can solve super difficult problems. By contrast, our brains performs complex operations entirely outside awareness. Problem-solving and consciousness are two separate things. 2. Biology is essential. Our brains are alive, down to every cell. Their activity is inseparable from the living tissue that produces it. The idea that consciousness can be reproduced simply by running the right computations on silicon components who do not fight for their life is a very far fetching and, I would add, almost religious, assumption. 3) The physical organization may matter more than the computation. According to integrated information theory, consciousness requires specific causal relationships between a system’s physical components. The computer architectures running today’s AI lack this organization. The comparison with AlphaFold is particularly revealing: Almost nobody things AlphaFold is conscious, despite its inner working is very similar to an LLM Why? Because it does not speak. LLMs do speak like us and therefore we fall into an illusion: Since they speak like us, they must be like us. But this inference is wrong. LLMs are just a series of matrix multiplications. They are not conscious, and they will never be. * Paper in the first reply
305
522
121
1,850
158,117
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
According to the laws of thermodynamics, information can be converted into energy. An information engine that harnesses environmental memory and exhibits non-Markovian dynamics has now been realized in experiments. nature.com/articles/s41567-0…
28
121
19
552
41,022
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Sometimes moving forward is just a way to reset boundaries. ​When pressured, a tiger’s rush isn’t about hunting, it’s a quick test to push an intrusion back. VC: Chandraprakash Yadav #Tiger #predator #Wildlife #Safari
1
17
1
138
9,935
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi, Christof Koch, et al. make a strong case for real free will (not an illusion) if Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is the correct explanation of consciousness: "If IIT is right, we do have free will in a genuine sense: we have alternatives, reasons, and values, we make decisions, and we—not our neurons or atoms—are the cause of our willed actions and bear responsibility for them." arxiv.org/abs/2206.02069
78
93
19
434
39,186
Now out: sciencedirect.com/science/ar…... And excited to report that my first PhD student, Chan Young, has already taken on several of the directions I outlined in this paper!
My current opinion on semantic cognition x LMs will be published in Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences' Special issue on AI and Psychology, edited by the incredible @neuranna @StePalminteri 

Grateful to both reviewers for raising excellent points!
2
5
46
2,019
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
AI neurons run on simple math. Real neurons are far weirder. A new open dataset fitted 1,000+ PyTorch-ready neuron models to real mouse and human cells. Does brain-like diversity make AI better? It's still an open question, but now it's testable. bit.ly/3WfGAwR
11
52
3
242
9,879
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
it’s been a privilege to watch this unfold. Some things ways my mental model of interpretability has changed: 1. Generalisation is probably the most important factor in how representations are structured - superposition probably exists to some degree but is an incredibly weak force compared to generalisation. @s_y_chung has interesting and deep work on manifold capacity that’s relevant here. 2. Deeper generalisation probably takes place through communities of neurons that work together and the downstream effect of this is to form manifolds in the residual stream. This also explains the sort of similarity we see in lower-magnitude but still causally important firings of neurons: the right object here is probably the manifold generated by neuron co-activations. 3. We still don’t understand attention nearly as well as we ought to, and the more we look the more takes place there. I’m optimistic now though, as at least we have one part of the crossword beginning to fill in. 4. This doesn’t mean that interpretability is solved - it means that it’s going to be a science! We still have a lot of that science to do, but now agents can help it should go far faster than we dreamed possible. 5. A more detailed/mathematical theory now seems potentially within reach. 6. As a field we’ve been too accepting of received wisdom and unfalsifiable hypotheses - how did this take so long? What else is mostly held back by the assumption that someone else has it figured out?
interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works already-clean.goodfire.com/
8
16
3
181
6,270
A new study finds evidence of a geometric “mental line” of neural activity in the premotor cortex of monkeys performing tasks that require transitive inference deductive reasoning. @istsupsan scim.ag/3UmuCRw
4
32
112
5,316
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Ten million people have watched an MIT professor teach a course whose first lecture is literally titled "What is a Derivative?" Almost none have written down the two-line answer. He filmed the lecture once in the fall of 2007 and it has been on YouTube ever since. Math tutors charge $200 an hour to teach a diluted version of what he covered in 50 minutes for free. His name is David Jerison. He is a professor of mathematics at MIT and the instructor of 18.01 Single Variable Calculus, one of the most-watched math courses in the history of the internet. The 50-minute clip in this video is Lecture 1, filmed at MIT in the fall of 2007. Jerison is deriving the definition of a derivative from a single tangent line. The whole framework fits on a napkin. A derivative is just how much y changes when x moves a tiny bit. Draw a tangent line to any curve at any point. The slope of that line is the derivative. Memorize one formula, the power rule, and you can differentiate every polynomial on earth in your head. Chain that with a handful of exceptions and you can differentiate almost every function humanity has ever written down. That single set of rules is what every neural network runs on gradient descent, what every rocket landing at SpaceX solves in real time, and what every options desk at Goldman Sachs is running behind every quote you see on the screen. "In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them." That is John von Neumann, the mathematician who helped design the atomic bomb and invent the modern computer. Jerison returns to the same idea in every lecture. Almost no student giving up on calculus has heard von Neumann say it out loud. Every quant fund on Wall Street pays entry-level analysts $250,000 to know the same power rule Jerison derives on the board. Every AI bootcamp charges tens of thousands to teach a diluted version of the same equation on a laptop. The lecture is free on MIT OpenCourseWare. The textbook is under sixty dollars. Almost none of the millions who watched have ever taken the power rule and applied it to their own numbers on their own paper. The math is free. The willingness to actually take one derivative before your next model, trade, or engineering trade-off is the entire edge.
3
66
306
31,714
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Out here one bite can turn breath into stillness. 💔 A pregnant honey badger, bitten by a black mamba, fights to reach shelter to deliver her cubs. Inside an old serval's den, 4 fragile lives are born while venom takes over her body. And then the unexpected happens - the serval doesn't hunt. It protects. A mother broken, but her love doesn't retreat. And a protector no one expected. 🖤
287
1,841
52
20,828
3,337,952
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
Happy to see this coming together. Great work by Anil, pushing his ideas out there to foster a much needed discussion. I remain unconvinced by any of Anil's arguments in favour of "biological naturalism", and yet see no good evidence at the moment for machine consciousness. 1/
1/3 Conscious AI and Biological Naturalism. A veeery loooong time in the making, but I'm happy to say that the full collection is now out in @BBSJournal 🔥 I deeply thank all commentators - of fifty commentaries! - for their wise, broad, and deep opinions on this critical topic. I also thank them for their saintly patience. 🙏🏽 I remain highly skeptical about the prospects for conscious AI (for silicon digital systems), but I've learned an enormous amount from the privilege of engaging with these commentaries. Hands down one of the most rewarding experiences of my professional life. My hope is that - whether you agree with me or not - having such a diversity of views collected in one place will serve a useful resource for discussions about consciousness and AI. The original target article is available here: cambridge.org/core/journals/… My response "The stuff matters: consciousness, computation, and biology" was published just now, and is here: cambridge.org/core/journals/… And the set of 50 commentaries are collected here: cambridge.org/core/journals/… Unfortunately these are not open access. I will try to remedy that, at least for the target & response. FWIW there's a more accessible version of my view on the topic here in @NoemaMag noemamag.com/the-mythology-o… and also a short @TEDTalks from earlier this year ted.com/talks/anil_seth_why_…
5
9
28
1,922
Any child can tell the difference between the living and the non-living. But what is the biological basis for life’s “aliveness?” While this question has long puzzled biologists, Addy Pross puts forth a compelling way forward. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/i…
13
80
3
281
12,648
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
**new paper: Superposition in Brains** What if Barlow was wrong? In his neuron doctrine (1972), he suggested to search for the 'trigger features' of each neuron to understand cortex. But what if that is the wrong coordinate system to understand neural representations? biorxiv.org/content/10.64898…
7
51
3
355
16,741
Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying cognitive flexibility: a translational perspective Review by Florian Bähner, Sarah Oh, Ali Hummos, Kai Sandbrink, Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, & Anne Collins Free access before Oct 21: tinyurl.com/mryswukb
1
23
117
6,468
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
I used Claude to make a movie of Daraxonrasib first binding to cyclophilin and the two then forming an inhibitory tricomplex with KRAS G12D. Thought Claude did a pretty darn impressive job, and this would especially be a nice explainer for students. I can only imagine how many hours and days it would take to do this manually. All positions are derived from deposited x-ray crystal structures.
4
9
126
8,696
Shantanu Ghosh retweeted
This book took about 10 years to write (or longer, depending on how you count)...I am fully on board with #SlowScience! mitpress.mit.edu/97802620450… Here are some tutorials that run example code in-browser, no back-end server or setup. #JupyterLite magic! torwager.github.io/elements-…
2
24
2
130
5,670
Beyond arousal: pupil fluctuations, neural activity, and behavior Review by Veera Ruuskanen & Sebastiaan Mathôt Free access before Oct 7: tinyurl.com/y4j637h9
1
29
95
5,866
We often think of the mind as something that passively perceives an objective world. But, in this interview, neuroscientist Karl Friston argues that the brain is not a mirror of reality but a prediction machine, constantly constructing the world it experiences. Drawing on the Free Energy Principle, he explains how perception, action, and consciousness emerge from the same underlying imperative: minimising surprise. Because of prediction, embodied action, and hierarchical inference, reality itself turns out to be something we actively build rather than simply observe. Click here to watch the full interview iai.tv/video/how-brains-cons…
17
53
15
180
10,895