To understand brain function and develop artificial general intelligence it has become abundantly clear that there should be a close interaction among Neuroscience, machine learning and mathematics. There is a general hope that understanding the brain function will provide us with more powerful machine learning algorithms. On the other hand advances in machine learning are now providing the much needed tools to not only analyse brain activity data but also to design better experiments to expose brain function. Both neuroscience and machine learning explicitly or implicitly deal with high dimensional data and systems. Mathematics can provide powerful new tools to understand and quantify the dynamics of biological and artificial systems as they generate behavior that may be perceived as intelligent.

In popular media, there is often a connection drawn between the advent of awareness in artificial agents and those same agents simultaneously achieving human or superhuman level intelligence. In this talk, I will examine the validity and potential application of this seemingly intuitive link between consciousness and intelligence. I will do so by examining the cognitive abilities associated with three contemporary theories of conscious function: Global Workspace Theory (GWT), Information Generation Theory (IGT), and Attention Schema Theory (AST), and demonstrating that all three theories specifically relate conscious function to some aspect of domain-general intelligence in humans. With this insight, we will turn to the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and find that, while still far from demonstrating general intelligence, many state-of-the-art deep learning methods have begun to incorporate key aspects of each of the three functional theories. Given this apparent trend, I will use the motivating example of mental time travel in humans to propose ways in which insights from each of the three theories may be combined into a unified model. I believe that doing so can enable the development of artificial agents which are not only more generally intelligent but are also consistent with multiple current theories of conscious function.

Flexible computation is a hallmark of intelligent behavior. Yet, little is known about how neural networks contextually reconfigure for different computations. Humans are able to perform a new task without extensive training, presumably through the composition of elementary processes that were previously learned. Cognitive scientists have long hypothesized the possibility of a compositional neural code, where complex neural computations are made up of constituent components; however, the neural substrate underlying this structure remains elusive in biological and artificial neural networks. Here we identified an algorithmic neural substrate for compositional computation through the study of multitasking artificial recurrent neural networks. Dynamical systems analyses of networks revealed learned computational strategies that mirrored the modular subtask structure of the task-set used for training. Dynamical motifs such as attractors, decision boundaries and rotations were reused across different task computations. For example, tasks that required memory of a continuous circular variable repurposed the same ring attractor. We show that dynamical motifs are implemented by clusters of units and are reused across different contexts, allowing for flexibility and generalization of previously learned computation. Lesioning these clusters resulted in modular effects on network performance: a lesion that destroyed one dynamical motif only minimally perturbed the structure of other dynamical motifs. Finally, modular dynamical motifs could be reconfigured for fast transfer learning. After slow initial learning of dynamical motifs, a subsequent faster stage of learning reconfigured motifs to perform novel tasks. This work contributes to a more fundamental understanding of compositional computation underlying flexible general intelligence in neural systems. We present a conceptual framework that establishes dynamical motifs as a fundamental unit of computation, intermediate between the neuron and the network. As more whole brain imaging studies record neural activity from multiple specialized systems simultaneously, the framework of dynamical motifs will guide questions about specialization and generalization across brain regions.

Unfamiliar face processing (face cognition) ability varies considerably in the general population. However, the means of its assessment are not standardised, and selected laboratory tests vary between studies. It is also unclear whether 1) the most commonly employed tests are reliable, 2) participants show a degree of consistency in their performance, 3) and the face cognition tests broadly measure one underlying ability, akin to general intelligence. In this study, we asked participants to perform eight tests frequently employed in the individual differences literature. We examined the reliability of these tests, relationships between them, consistency in participants’ performance, and used data driven approaches to determine factors underpinning performance. Overall, our findings suggest that the reliability of these tests is poor to moderate, the correlations between them are weak, the consistency in participant performance across tasks is low and that performance can be broadly split into two factors: telling faces together, and telling faces apart. We recommend that future studies adjust analyses to account for stimuli (face images) and participants as random factors, routinely assess reliability, and that newly developed tests of face cognition are examined in the context of convergent validity with other commonly used measures of face cognition ability.

To understand brain function and develop artificial general intelligence it has become abundantly clear that there should be a close interaction among Neuroscience, machine learning and mathematics. There is a general hope that understanding the brain function will provide us with more powerful machine learning algorithms. On the other hand advances in machine learning are now providing the much needed tools to not only analyse brain activity data but also to design better experiments to expose brain function. Both neuroscience and machine learning explicitly or implicitly deal with high dimensional data and systems. Mathematics can provide powerful new tools to understand and quantify the dynamics of biological and artificial systems as they generate behavior that may be perceived as intelligent. In this meeting we bring together experts from Mathematics, Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience for a three day long hybrid meeting. We will have talks on mathematical tools in particular Topology to understand high dimensional data, explainable AI, how AI can help neuroscience and to what extent the brain may be using algorithms similar to the ones used in modern machine learning. Finally we will wrap up with a discussion on some aspects of neural hardware that may not have been considered in machine learning.

Computer AI thinks differently from us, which is why it's such a useful tool. Thanks to the ingenuity of human programmers, AI's different method of thinking has made humans redundant at certain human tasks, such as chess. Yet there are mechanical limits to how far AI can replicate the products of human thinking. In this talk, we'll trace one such limit by exploring how AI and humans create differently. Humans create by reverse-engineering tools or behaviors to accomplish new actions. AI creates by mix-and-matching pieces of preexisting structures and labeling which combos are associated with positive and negative results. This different procedure is why AI cannot (and will never) learn to innovate technology or tactics and why it also cannot (and will never) learn to generate narratives (including novels, business plans, and scientific hypotheses). It also serves as a case study in why there's no reason to believe in "general intelligence" and why computer AI would have to partner with other mechanical forms of AI (run on non-computer hardware that, as of yet, does not exist, and would require humans to invent) for AI to take over the globe.

Network analytic methods that are ubiquitous in other areas, such as systems neuroscience, have recently been used to test network theories in psychology, including intelligence research. The network or mutualism theory of intelligence proposes that the statistical associations among cognitive abilities (e.g. specific abilities such as vocabulary or memory) stem from causal relations among them throughout development. In this study, we used network models (specifically LASSO) of cognitive abilities and brain structural covariance (grey and white matter) to simultaneously model brain-behavior relationships essential for general intelligence in a large (behavioral, N=805; cortical volume, N=246; fractional anisotropy, N=165), developmental (ages 5-18) cohort of struggling learners (CALM). We found that mostly positive, small partial correlations pervade both our cognitive and neural networks. Moreover, calculating node centrality (absolute strength and bridge strength) and using two separate community detection algorithms (Walktrap and Clique Percolation), we found convergent evidence that subsets of both cognitive and neural nodes play an intermediary role between brain and behavior. We discuss implications and possible avenues for future studies.