> 80% is spent on motor skills.
The cerebellum isn't just for motor skills. It's more of a place where very commonly used patterns get a bunch of dedicated wetware so the computation is superfast and precise. In an (undoubtedly very limited) analogy a bunch of FPGAs to complement the general processing. It does make a lot of sense to use this functionality for motor skills, though.
See:
So the 80% is spent on, more generally, habits and intuition. Makes sense.
It's spent on 'fast, effortless' recall. Maybe, long-term memory, or memories associated with activities like balance, singing, and anything that requires precise steady control.
A keeper of balance and rhythm, if you want to think of it that way, and anything that is too much of a burden to creativity: a mind is a bunch of ideas (thoughts) collected into a moment in the mind, all the ones needed for controlling things like balance and rhythm are best handled in an autonomously looped fashion (think Cybernetics: control loops that guide an agent).
The article mentions the forebrain controls creativity, reasoning, higher-level thinking. And the hindbrain controls muscles of the throat, tongue, etc: so speech, singing. We all reach for some 'flow' state: perhaps it's this state where the 80% and 20% are more in harmony within the mind. Where what we create with our minds is appreciated, and the outer loop that critiques ourselves lays quiet. 'Flow' is achieved.
Everything becomes an autonomous loop: which is the study of Cybernetics, and (coincidentally?) the birthplace of AI.
If we follow the pattern of simulating biology, I would expect some ratio of compute could be determined 'optimal' for the new Dream-RSI technique recently: https://www.dream-rsi.com/ to eventually move towards '80%' of compute for autonomously controlled systems, and 20% towards 'something else'. The ratio won't be there in the beginning because an AI system has different autonomous needs.
Through testing and iteration, we'll arrive at some ratio as technology matures: my guess is it will match the one we find in our own heads: 80% for autonomous functions, 20% for creativity.
Keep in mind, dreaming and recursive self-improvement as it is now, is a big unknown: nobody knows what ratio is best, but honestly it's less important because we're all looking at 'Quality' of results right now.
But as the technology matures and moves into robotics and more, and more complexity is required to 'do work': I expect 80% to be accurate.
I can't quite agree with your framing of loops, balance, and rhythm. A lot of the output patterns produced by the cerebellum are singular actions: tying your shoe laces, for instance. Progressing from learning how to do that to struggling whenever you try to do it differently than you always do (start halfway, reverse directions, verbally describing what you're doing, etc.) is more indicative of the optimizations that are encoded in the cerebellum, imho.
I can certainly imagine AI architectures evolving similar dedicated circuitry to perform common computations. As in us, it might be particularly useful for applications where some form of motor control is required, such as in self-driving and robotics.
It's a bit harder to come up with areas beyond that where it makes sense for general AI. Math and physics spring to mind, but in general the tendency to snap to a certain handling of an input pattern might be way too limiting in terms of creativity; it might become narrow-minded and primitive in those areas. OTOH, again, that might be fantastic for narrow AI applications.
Pipes and cycles is a good way to think about it. Our brain has cycles and we have pipes that move information around: we're processing information to persist.
Some of the information we're aware of, some if it were not, and sometimes we want to be unaware, of certain things, when we're aware (bored).
Recently we learned there are 2 separate lines of development: 2 separate progenitor stem cells that lead to a fully developed front and hindbrain.
Cybernetics is about autonomous loops: there is a loop that keeps us alive. The loop iterates, has rhythm, cycles. There is information that has to be 'brought into a moment' to control your body and mind. And we need two systems to keep our stuff held together and give us a sense of self.
Whatever you think of a given moment: the electric order required to operate your body seems to break down to about an 80/20 ratio of processing power, brain material (a dual system in itself, with two halves) if you consider neuron count.
An 80/20 split to properly persist us and provide a 'now' experience that grows over time. We use the same system to imagine and predict.
Also: consider recall speed, and speed of information transmission itself. What is required for the brain to respond to input, or just persist the body? It's not only important to move information quickly, you just move the right information.
When writing? When riding a bike? Singing, sleeping, etc.
For any moment, like the singular moments you mentioned, we wrestle with boredom and recreation. And we balance time, work, etc. because we have basic needs that have to be met first. Your heart beat must be adequate, you need a certain amount of breath, sleep, food, etc.
It would be a lot of mental burden: try manual breathing and going about your day for as long as possible. The ratio of neurons is about 80/20 for some reason, and it must be a good one for us.
There is a lot of looping and control at play however 'aware' we are.
The cerebellum piping, the control, requires a lot of matter/piping, and the ratio is interesting. I'm considering a whole robotic thing: servos, and brains, and all the control that's required to balance input and output to 'do something', the keepalive loop for a robot that thinks and moves like us:
Bringing it back though, there's an outer loop that allows us to persist. For us it's two systems.
Our 'keepalive' loop two systems, 80/20 split.
is an outer control loop for robotics, like you're mentioning. Those pipes and cycles from the start of this message. If the goal is to create something that resembles a living creature that moves and responds to environment, and does work to persist:
I expect to see a repeated pattern again, the 80/20 ratio. 80 percent required for managing autonomous loops, and 20 percent to do 'creative thinking' or something else, simply because of the new 'dreaming RSI' news: new insights into automated improvement, another autonomous loop.
As we add more loops...the ratio might matter, depending on what you want to do. But if it's lifelike robotics, I expect to see the 80/20 split. But obviously we would just iteratively work out the optimal ratio based on economy.
The result is the same: mindless scrolling consumes 80% of my brain while the 20% struggles to ever get anything done :)
If everything is a push, and a pull, then choice and decision must be important.
Nobody tells you what to think. It's simply easier not to.
When cache is bigger than the database.
Well it's not bigger...
Headline for IEEE: biologists show that human brain is basically a big FPGA devboard.