Kirby wrote:There's different scale, but the left/right-ness is also a concept that doesn't exist in neural networks, right?
The human brain has a lot of different areas performing different functions, but a neural network is basically a graph of connected nodes. The intermediate layers are connected to different components, but no explicit functions are designed to match the human brain afaik.
For example, a neural network doesn't have a portion of the graph set aside to simulate the frontal lobe vs the temporal lobe.
Intermediate layers may have different weights after being trained, but this is implicitly learned as opposed to being designed to be similar to sections of the human brain.
If you think about structure, then no, there's no such thing as lobes or left and right hemispheres in neural networks. Neural networks aren't supposed to simulate a brain, they are supposed to simulate processes that occur inside of a brain - in this case, transmission of signals between semi-independent neurons. If you consider functionality however, then specific neural networks can be related to specific parts of a brain, e.g. your policy network is responsible for working out sequences and so more related to the left hemisphere, while your value network allows you to evaluate the board on the fly, being more similar to what the right hemisphere is responsible for.
All this talk about comparisons between neural networks and brains is really weird. NNs are pure maths; if you saw the equations for stuff that goes on inside a go bot, you'd have a hard time comparing the two. There's no intuition in there to speak of, just the history of its games concentrated into a couple of numerical computations.
