I agree that more detailed measurements of brains could be technologically feasible over the coming decades and could give rise to a different kind of insight that is more directly useful for AI (I don’t normally imagine this coming from fMRI progress, but I don’t know much about the area).
That said, I think “what is the current trend” is still an important indicator.
And the paper talks explicitly about the influence of past progress in neuroscience, both its past influence on AI and the possible future influence. So I think it’s particularly relevant to the argument they are making.
I agree that more detailed measurements of brains could be technologically feasible over the coming decades and could give rise to a different kind of insight that is more directly useful for AI (I don’t normally imagine this coming from fMRI progress, but I don’t know much about the area).
That said, I think “what is the current trend” is still an important indicator.
And the paper talks explicitly about the influence of past progress in neuroscience, both its past influence on AI and the possible future influence. So I think it’s particularly relevant to the argument they are making.