5 ms·

Wait, they grew an artificial brain, connected it to a computer, and define the major "problem" as "how to keep the organoids alive"? I'm curious at the analys

Wait, they grew an artificial brain, connected it to a computer, and define the major "problem" as "how to keep the organoids alive"? I'm curious at the analysis the university IRB used in approving this research.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
I'm unsure what you're objecting to.
- jdiff 3y ago
  What I understood from GP was the possibility of some fragment of consciousness in that small bit of tissue. Humanity isn't in the fragments, though, it's in the structure of the whole. It doesn't matter much if it was human brain tissue or animal brain tissue, at the levels we seem to be talking about they work identically.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    The problem is we're trying to second guess what consciousness is, and win the battle by defining the word in a convenient, but binary way. Technically we have no clue if humanity is conscious. We only know "I am conscious, and those other things are humans like me, so I think they may also be". Some extend this to animals (which they should) but try to draw some random line like "if it can't recognize itself in a mirror, it's not conscious" but even a fly may recognize itself in a mirror occasionally. It's not a magic rule. Let's face it, just like intelligence is much simpler and much more pervasive than we thought (just put neurons in a big network), consciousness is likely everywhere around us. It may simply be a conscious universe. There's nothing special about the substrate and constitution of animate matter, compared to what we consider inanimate matter, except that we're organized to preserve low entropy and transform inputs into outputs in complex ways. So are machines, computers and AI. And so the debate on how to classify this dish of neurons seems superfluous. We should respect all systems and try to be in harmony with them.
seydor 3y ago
an organoid is hardly a brain
emporas 3y ago
If the cells lack arteries, proper arteries with nutrients, leukocytes, immune system etc, then their lifespan will be a lot less than 7 years. Pretty amazing actually that everything else is easy, or not difficult at least, and that's the hard part. But they will find a solution to make it practical for the cells to be trained, deployed, live for some weeks in a server farm, scoop up the dead cells from the silicon, put some new cells on, repeat! I have argued in the past, that a solution to that problem will definitely be found [1]. A.I. computation will grow exponentially, but not 2^10 times a decade, 2^10 times a year. The enormity of such exponential growth is impossible using only silicon. Natural computation of biological cells is great when absolute accuracy is not necessary, and pure silicon is the worst at that task. Natural computation using bacteria like slime, brain cells, fungi, bacteria mutated like neural cells or brain cells, any kind of combination. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37472021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37472021

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago

I'm unsure what you're objecting to.

jdiff 3y ago
What I understood from GP was the possibility of some fragment of consciousness in that small bit of tissue. Humanity isn't in the fragments, though, it's in the structure of the whole. It doesn't matter much if it was human brain tissue or animal brain tissue, at the levels we seem to be talking about they work identically.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  The problem is we're trying to second guess what consciousness is, and win the battle by defining the word in a convenient, but binary way. Technically we have no clue if humanity is conscious. We only know "I am conscious, and those other things are humans like me, so I think they may also be". Some extend this to animals (which they should) but try to draw some random line like "if it can't recognize itself in a mirror, it's not conscious" but even a fly may recognize itself in a mirror occasionally. It's not a magic rule. Let's face it, just like intelligence is much simpler and much more pervasive than we thought (just put neurons in a big network), consciousness is likely everywhere around us. It may simply be a conscious universe. There's nothing special about the substrate and constitution of animate matter, compared to what we consider inanimate matter, except that we're organized to preserve low entropy and transform inputs into outputs in complex ways. So are machines, computers and AI. And so the debate on how to classify this dish of neurons seems superfluous. We should respect all systems and try to be in harmony with them.

seydor 3y ago

an organoid is hardly a brain

emporas 3y ago

If the cells lack arteries, proper arteries with nutrients, leukocytes, immune system etc, then their lifespan will be a lot less than 7 years. Pretty amazing actually that everything else is easy, or not difficult at least, and that's the hard part. But they will find a solution to make it practical for the cells to be trained, deployed, live for some weeks in a server farm, scoop up the dead cells from the silicon, put some new cells on, repeat! I have argued in the past, that a solution to that problem will definitely be found [1]. A.I. computation will grow exponentially, but not 2^10 times a decade, 2^10 times a year. The enormity of such exponential growth is impossible using only silicon. Natural computation of biological cells is great when absolute accuracy is not necessary, and pure silicon is the worst at that task. Natural computation using bacteria like slime, brain cells, fungi, bacteria mutated like neural cells or brain cells, any kind of combination. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37472021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37472021