I am by no means an AI professional or neurobioligist, but I have read recently that a major problem with neural networks is that they do not have glial cells which, among other things, move synapses around and helps with synapse growth.
There are around 100 billion neurons in the brain and 100 trillion synapses. This indicates to me that synapses may be more important to biological neural networks than neurons are, and yet most ANN research has been focused exclusively on neurons (I once asked my teacher which neurons to connect to each other and recommended using a GA, which is not a bad idea but it indicates to me we have a very poor understanding of how synapses aught to work to make better ANNs.)
I disagree with the overly pessimistic view of this article however. To say that our standard neural networks are not nearly as complex as biological ones would be accurate, but this hardly means that ANNs are doomed forever, we just need more research into the things that matter.
There are around 100 billion neurons in the brain and 100 trillion synapses. This indicates to me that synapses may be more important to biological neural networks than neurons are, and yet most ANN research has been focused exclusively on neurons (I once asked my teacher which neurons to connect to each other and recommended using a GA, which is not a bad idea but it indicates to me we have a very poor understanding of how synapses aught to work to make better ANNs.)
I disagree with the overly pessimistic view of this article however. To say that our standard neural networks are not nearly as complex as biological ones would be accurate, but this hardly means that ANNs are doomed forever, we just need more research into the things that matter.