REVIEW 1 cited by
Better artificial intelligence does not mean better models of biology
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) once showed increasing alignment with primate perception and neural responses as they improved on vision benchmarks, raising hopes that advances in AI would yield better models of biological vision. However, we show across three benchmarks that this alignment is now plateauing - and in some cases worsening - as DNNs scale to human or superhuman accuracy. This divergence may reflect the adoption of visual strategies that differ from those used by primates. These findings challenge the view that progress in artificial intelligence will naturally translate to neuroscience. We argue that vision science must chart its own course, developing algorithms grounded in biological visual systems rather than optimizing for benchmarks based on internet-scale datasets.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
TRIBE: TRImodal Brain Encoder for whole-brain fMRI response prediction
A transformer-based encoder that combines text, audio, and video embeddings predicts whole-brain fMRI responses to movies across subjects and won the Algonauts 2025 competition.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.