A personal journey on understanding intelligence
The focus of this talk is not about my research in AI or Robotics but my own journey on trying to do research and understand intelligence in a rapidly evolving research landscape. I will trace my path from conducting early-stage research during graduate school, to working on practical solutions within a startup environment, and finally to my current role where I participate in more structured research at a major tech company. Through these varied experiences, I will provide different perspectives on research and talk about how my core beliefs on intelligence have changed and sometimes even been compromised. There are no lessons to be learned from my stories, but hopefully they will be entertaining.
Bridging brain and cognition: A multilayer network analysis of brain structural covariance and general intelligence in a developmental sample of struggling learners
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.
Analogical reasoning and metaphor processing in autism - Similarities & differences
In this talk, I will present the results of two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to analogical reasoning and metaphor processing in autism, together with the results of a study that investigated verbal analogical reasoning and metaphor processing in the same sample of participants. Both metaphors and analogies rely on exploiting similarities, and they necessitate contextual processing. Nevertheless, our findings relating to metaphor processing and analogical reasoning showed distinct patterns. Whereas analogical reasoning emerged as a relative strength in autism, metaphor processing was found to be a relative weakness. Additionally, both meta-analytic studies investigated the relations between the level of intelligence of participants included in the studies, and the effect size of group differences between the autistic and typically developing (TD) samples. These analyses suggested in the case of analogical reasoning that the relative advantage of ASD participants might only be present in the case of individuals with lower levels of intelligence. By contrast, impairments in metaphor processing appeared to be more pronounced in the case of individuals with relatively lower levels of (verbal) intelligence. In our experimental study, we administered both verbal analogies and metaphors to the same sample of high-functioning autistic participants and TD controls. The two groups were matched on age, verbal IQ, working memory and educational background. Our aim was to understand better the similarities and differences between processing analogies and metaphors, and to see whether the advantage in analogical reasoning and disadvantage in metaphor processing is universal in autism.
Artificial neural networks do not adequately mimic whatever is going on in the real brain
One may think that Deep Learning technology works in ways that are similar to the human brain. This is not really true. Our best AI technology still does not mimic the brain sufficiently well to be a match in intelligence. I will describe seven differences on how our minds work in ways diametrically opposite to those of Deep Learning technology.