Researchers take major step forward in Artificial Intelligence

The long-standing dream of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to build an artificial brain has taken a significant step forward, as a team led by Professor Newton Howard from the University of Oxford has successfully prototyped a nanoscale, AI-powered, artificial brain in the form factor of a high-bandwidth neural implant.

Professor Newton Howard (pictured above and below) holding parts of the implant device

In collaboration with INTENT LTD, Qualcomm Corporation, Intel Corporation, Georgetown University and the Brain Sciences Foundation, Professor Howard’s Oxford Computational Neuroscience Lab in the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences has developed the proprietary algorithms and the optoelectronics required for the device. Rodents’ testing is on target to begin very soon.

This achievement caps over a decade of research by Professor Howard at MIT’s Synthetic Intelligence Lab and the University of Oxford, work that resulted in several issued US patents on the technologies and algorithms that power the device, 

• the Fundamental Code Unit of the Brain (FCU), 
• the Brain Code (BC) and the Biological Co-Processor (BCP) 

are the latest advanced foundations for any eventual merger between biological intelligence and human intelligence. Ni2o (pronounced “Nitoo”) is the entity that Professor Howard licensed to further develop, market and promote these technologies.

The Biological Co-Processor is unique in that it uses advanced nanotechnology, optogenetics and deep machine learning to intelligently map internal events, such as neural spiking activity, to external physiological, linguistic and behavioral expression. The implant contains over a million carbon nanotubes, each of which is 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Carbon nanotubes provide a natural, high-bandwidth interface as they conduct heat, light and electricity instantaneously updating the neural laces. They adhere to neuronal constructs and even promote neural growth. Qualcomm team leader Rudy Beraha commented, 'Although the prototype unit shown today is tethered to external power, a commercial Brain Co-Processor unit will be wireless and inductively powered, enabling it to be administered with a minimally-invasive procedures.'

The device uses a combination of methods to write to the brain, including 

• pulsed electricity, 
• light and 
• various molecules that simulate or inhibit the activation of specific neuronal groups. 

These can be targeted to stimulate a desired response, such as releasing chemicals in patients suffering from a neurological disorder or imbalance. The BCP is designed as a fully integrated system to use the brain’s own internal systems and chemistries to pattern and mimic healthy brain behavior, an approach that stands in stark contrast to the current state of the art, which is to simply apply mild electrocution to problematic regions of the brain. 

Therapeutic uses

The Biological Co-Processor promises to provide relief for millions of patients suffering from neurological, psychiatric and psychological disorders as well as degenerative diseases. Initial therapeutic uses will likely be for patients with traumatic brain injuries and neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s, as the BCP will strengthen the weak, shortening connections responsible for lost memories and skills. Once implanted, the device provides a closed-loop, self-learning platform able to both determine and administer the perfect balance of pharmaceutical, electroceutical, genomeceutical and optoceutical therapies.

Dr Richard Wirt, a Senior Fellow at Intel Corporation and Co-Founder of INTENT, the company’s partner of Ni2o bringing BCP to market, commented on the device, saying, 'In the immediate timeframe, this device will have many benefits for researchers, as it could be used to replicate an entire brain image, synchronously mapping internal and external expressions of human response. Over the long term, the potential therapeutic benefits are unlimited.'

The brain controls all organs and systems in the body, so the cure to nearly every disease resides there.- Professor Newton Howard

Rather than simply disrupting neural circuits, the machine learning systems within the BCP are designed to interpret these signals and intelligently read and write to the surrounding neurons. These capabilities could be used to reestablish any degenerative or trauma-induced damage and perhaps write these memories and skills to other, healthier areas of the brain. 

One day, these capabilities could also be used in healthy patients to radically augment human ability and proactively improve health. As Professor Howard points out: 'The brain controls all organs and systems in the body, so the cure to nearly every disease resides there.' Speaking more broadly, Professor Howard sees the merging of man with machine as our inevitable destiny, claiming it to be 'the next step on the blueprint that the author of it all built into our natural architecture.'

With the resurgence of neuroscience and AI enhancing machine learning, there has been renewed interest in brain implants. This past March, Elon Musk and Bryan Johnson independently announced that they are focusing and investing in for the brain/computer interface domain. 

When asked about these new competitors, Professor Howard said he is happy to see all these new startups and established names getting into the field - he only wonders what took them so long, stating: 'I would like to see us all working together, as we have already established a mathematical foundation and software framework to solve so many of the challenges they will be facing. We could all get there faster if we could work together - after all, the patient is the priority.'

© 2017 Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU

ORIGINAL: NDS Oxford

2 June 2017 

What Forms of Creativity Turn You On?

It’s no secret: creativity is sexy. People all over the world rank creativity as a highly desirable quality in a partner, and people who are creative across a variety of fields report more sexual partners (similar results have been found in specific fields such as visual art, music, and humor).

But are all forms of creativity equally attractive?

According to evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, creative displays in humans are analogous to the peacock’s tail: they serve the function of attracting mates by serving as indicators of mental fitness (cognitive functioning and personality).

Extending this argument, personality psychologist Gregory Feist made a key distinction between applied/technological displays of creativity (seen in modern domains of technology, science, and engineering), and ornamental/aesthetic displays of creativity (seen in modern domains of art, music, and other aesthetic domains). According to Feist, ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity– which play on our evolved perceptual functions and evoke strong emotions in the perceiver– were shaped primarily by sexual selection pressures and are therefore more likely to receive a sexual response than applied/technological forms of creativity.

Such displays are also more likely to be passed on to future generations and become part of the cultural record. As Daniel Nettle points out in his terrific book Strong Imagination: Madness, Creativity and Human Nature:

“You remember Beethoven and Brahms, but can you name a single innovator in the field of sewer construction and sewage treatment?”

You probably can’t, even though the latter has probably saved more lives than the former. After all, why is it that American Idol finalists get a townwide parade in their home towns, whereas PhD candidates in psychology, for instance, get a parade attended only by their parents and grandparents?

But hold up, you say. To each his or her own. What is one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, right?

Well, maybe. These are the sort of questions that motivated a study I conducted with Gregory Feist and my colleagues Aaron Kozbelt, Paul Silvia, James Kaufman, and Sheela Ramesh, and which we report in a new paper called Who Finds Bill Gates Sexy? Creative Mate Preferences as Function of Cognitive Ability, Personality, and Creative Achievement.

First we created the “Creative Behavior Mating Preferences Checklist”, in which people are asked to rank 43 creative behaviors according to how much they find each behavior “sexually attractive in a potential mate.” Then we investigated the best cognitive, personality, and creative achievement predictors of the various items on the scale.

For all the nuance, I highly recommend downloading the paper. But here are a few highlights:
For both males and females on average, ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity were considered more sexually attractive than applied/technological forms of creativity. These findings are consistent with Feist’s theory about human creative mate preferences at a species-typical level.

On average, here are the top 10 sexiest creative behaviors:

1. Playing sports
2. Taking a date on a spontaneous road trip 
3. Recording music 
4. Making a clever remark
5. Writing music
6. Performing in a band
7. The taking of artistic photographs
8. Performing in comedy 
9. Dressing in a unique style
10. Writing poetry

On average, here are the top 10 least sexy creative behaviors:

1. Making ad campaigns
2. Interior decorating
3. Writing an original computer program
4. Making websites
5. Growing and gardening
6. Presenting scientific or mathematical papers
7. Exterior decorating
8. Applying math in an original way to solve a practical problem
9. The development of scientific experimental designs
10. Participating in drama production

BUT… We also found substantial differences in reported mate preferences among people, and these differences could be predicted based on personality. People who scored higher in intellectual curiosity, enjoyment of cognitively complex reasoning, and who reported more creative achievements in the sciences tended to find applied/technological forms of creativity incredibly sexy in a potential partner. In contrast, the best predictor of a preference for ornamental/aesthetic forms of creativity among both males and females was openness to experience: a preference for engagement with sensory, aesthetic, fantasy, and emotional information. Interestingly, among males, higher levels of intellectual curiosity actually were associated with less of a preference for ornamental/aesthetic displays of creativity in a potential mate. Not sure what to make of that finding though.

Taken together, these results suggest that even though creative displays that evoke perceptual, aesthetic, and emotional qualities in the perceiver are considered most sexually attractive by most humans, assortative mating (“like attracts likes”) very much operates within the creativity domain. So for all those out there who get turned on by creative behaviors such as “Writing an original computer program”, or “Presenting scientific or mathematical papers at a conference”, know that you aren’t alone, and there’s some programmer out there who will find your own creative behaviors intoxicatingly attractive!

photo credit: istockphoto

ORIGINAL: Beautiful Minds Blog. Scientific American

By Scott Barry Kaufman.

December 16, 2014

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

© 2014 Scott Barry Kaufman, All Rights Reserved