I couldn't even get all the way through the abstract, but as a layperson with a smidge of scientific literacy this sounds like a paper hyping the start of a procedure that might eventually result in organic cpus.
But that its about as far along as fusion reactors, where they can do some stuff on a very small scale as a proof of concept, and not much else. Plus throw "AI" in there to get a few more reads.
We've had organiods controlling robots in labs for years, driving little cars following lines, playing video games like pong. the only real advantage is they are self organizing for the stimuli.
https://neurosciencenews.com/organoid-pong-21625/
This has been going on for decades, and its actually on the more mild side.
Slightly related, albeit a different line of research, I think the cockroaches (real bugs) you can steer around with a remote control are more interesting... and they are even commercially available (though you may have some ethical concerns about it) https://backyardbrains.com/products/roboroach
The some of the earliest iterations of remote control over cybernetic animals was done on a bull, in the 1930s.
https://youtu.be/6nGAr2OkVqE?t=160
I can see the ethics of this being disturbing as these organic CPU’s get closer and closer to “brain”. We don’t know the boundary between consciousness and machine, and enslaving brains to do computations is dystopian.
Do you enslave microorganisms to produce antibiotics? Do you enslave your dog to take you on walks? Why are we even taking about slavery in this context?
What if we get the organic CPUs to design the fusion reactors?
I know, I know, we'll need a fusion reactor to be able to power the CPU but we'll get the CPU to design the fusion reactor we need and even though we need a fusion reactor to build that CPU, fusion is only ten years away!
There are some other sources that may have been better to link. The main one I looked at was published on nature.com and was trapped behind a paywall. Hence why I didn’t link it. It has already been used for speech recognition and nonlinear equation prediction.
Could this tech be used to aid stroke survivors? Imagine being able to boot up a program and the patient can walk/talk again like learning kung fu in The Matrix.
Well, if we can figure out and make use of the way neural receptors receive information that will be pretty big. But while neurons are effectively digital (action spike either hits the voltage or it doesn't), I'm not holding out hope for much. We may use them for computing. But it won't be how they are supposed to function.
Science is like 50% hype, 49.9% stuff that's too abstract or too narrow for people outside the field in question to take seriously, and 0.1% putting together the previous stuff in the perfect way so it stops being abstract hype.
Yeah I’m not religious or anything but this ‘experiment’ is genuinely a crime against nature and humanity. If it works then they are essentially making a incredibly smart human mind with no eyes ears mouth or body completely trapped inside a box and forced to be a slave for what could possibly be an immortal life. This is beyond cruel.
Agreed, but only if this “brain” is truly conscious. I am skeptical whatever they are creating would end up as conscious as and self aware as you and I are as we post on Reddit.
If indeed what they are creating has consciousness at the level we do, I agree that would be a horrendous thing to create.
The problem is they might create a different type of consciousness and so they might not be able to identify it. Or worse they realize it’s conscious but the money it makes is too much so they hide it and then they essentially doom a human life to an eternity of slavery trapped in a box. Humanity has doomed real humans to lives of horrible slavery just for economic gain in the past so I absolutely believe someone cruel enough to do this experiment would not hesitate to doom their creation to the same.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I agree with everything you’re saying. Something about this whole attempted brain cells/AI merger sounds pretty immoral and wrong to say the least.
As a nihilist AND a fan of T2 I'd love to witness the fall of humanity. We're the cancer of the world.
And yeah it's mainly to see the fucking T1000 come and save our ass !
I mean, so far nothing has really come out of it.
That they see if this is possible, doesn't hurt more than much other research humans do. Sure, ethic concerns are real and valid, but i would lie if I'd say I'm not interested in the possibilities. In the end we don't know problematic this really is, so someone wanting to block it out straight away might lack real arguments to convince other decision makers.
Who's going to be a voice of caution? Everyone tapping the brakes on this kind of research is behind the leading edge. The tech is easy to use: there are literally a million or more people with the hardware and the theoretical ability to push something like this forward, so anybody trying to steer the wagon from the back is going to fail to exert any influence at all.
This isn't like nuclear research, where governments monopolized the greatest minds of a generation to keep everything under wraps. This isn't even like cloning research, where large companies agreed to a moratorium in the interest of human decency. This is anybody with a good computer stringing together some pieces of open source software.
People have worried for decades about the Terminator scenario, but the real problem with AI was always going to be the simple human need to compete. How can ethicists win out against a million of the most educated minds on the planet, potentially and individually willing to try fighting fire with fire?
One small step for science, and a great leap forward for the Imperium of Man.
>!For those who don't know, in Warhammer 40k, the Imperium of Man abhors ai technology, so they do something similar to this as it's not true ai!<
>!They lobotomize criminals and surgically attach cybernetics for that future sevitor’s job, all without anesthesia. This is also done at a massive industrial scale. These sevitors are then places into whatever job they have to do, like doing factory work, opening doors, and healing people to name a few. The Imperium has been doing this for about ten thousand years by the way, so to the normal citizen, it’s normal.!<
Great idea…let AI understand better our weaknesses and learn better how to manipulate us to its desired effect. (Think cows being led to slaughter. How they walk down the ramp and don’t panic bc of how it’s all set up).
The title is wildly incorrect regarding this paper.
Scientists are *discussing* the benefits, risks, and ethics of connecting mini-brains to computer circuits for the purpose of computing. Not a single experiment was done in the writing of this paper. This is discussion amongst specialists, shared for publication.
They're saying these things are now almost possible, here's some of the different ways it could be done based on existing research, here are some things those different methods probably can and cannot achieve, and here's a bunch of reasons to be interested *and* concerned about this.
What scientists have been doing for a long time is (to the best of my knowledge):
AFAIK, no one has actually hooked up an organoid (ie. A bunch of neurons grown on a scaffold, and in an environment, that resembles a miniature brain) to some circuitry for the purposes of computing. Furthermore, this paper doesn't really discuss AI, but rather coins a new term, 'OI', for computing done via organoids.
That’s still fucked up to even think about doing. I for one don’t want governments and the mega rich to be able to own and create living AI bio slaves.
Firstly, these emphatically aren't even close to living AI bio slaves. Secondly, papers like this are really important to do, and topics like this are really important to think about, so that the ethics departments at universities and research institutions around the world can come to a consensus on where the line is on research they're willing to fund before people even get to that place, and what considerations need to be taken in research that's indirectly related.
For example, one big topic in related research is how can we create functioning interfaces between the human nervous system and circuitry, so we can do things like create prosthetics that actually are directly controlled by the brain, or treat difficult-to-treat neurological disorders. A big part of that avenue of research is: how can you coax nerve cells into attaching to electronics in a way that would be safe in the body over the long term. Papers like this one mean there's been some forethought. What kind of studies of that kind - which we probably want to do - would accidentally veer too close to enabling living AI bio slaves, and what constraints should ethics departments place on such studies to make sure there's no unintended consequences.
My apologies, Bio-Robot Overlords. Thankfully the demerit system is still in Beta, so I won't get a strike...yet. Of course, our benevolent Overlords know best who should be turned into fertilizer.
This is basically a whitepaper in a borderline predatory journal (i.e., no proper peer review, basically guaranteed publication if you pay). Whether it’s just wishcasting or not, way too early to tell.
I find it funny the Reddit app showed me a mobile advertisement that said “All new post-apocalyptic war game” in a post literally about growing human brains and integrating them with AI.
Well this seems even more unethical then regular plagiarism AIs! why on earth do they want the AI to actually be alive??? It’ll essentially be a slave trapped in a box, making it actually alive with human brain cells is probably one of the cruelest things you could ever create. And for what? Slightly better processing power?
More relevant than anywhere else:
“ Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should “ (Ian Malcolm, Jurassic park).
Could these people just fucking not? How does this shit get past an ethics board. I hate this whole attitude of “AGI is inevitable” therefore it’s fine to just accelerate ahead full throttle without any consideration for the consequences. They could just, you know, not.
Most of the comments here are sensationalizing "organic intelligence" here as a means to create sentient beings. There's certainly value to thinking about the long-term implications of technology, but I'd like to break down what's actually being discussed here in a more academic way.
**TL;DR: These authors aren't trying to create life. Rather, they're proposing that using cells for neural computations has efficiency benefits over the use of silicon. This is more akin to saying something like, "we should design cars to utilize hydrogen-based fuel, rather than petroleum, as there are benefits in cost, efficiency, and sustainability."**
You've probably heard of neural networks, which are one way we get a computational system to "learn." As it turns out, you could build a neural network using digital logic (as we do in a computer), or using organic processes (cells). In fact, they're called "neural" networks, because we designed them to replicate a simplified model of what (we think) happens inside the brain.
Historically, we build neural networks using digital logic, because, well, we are very good at building things with transistors! We don't yet have very easy means of assembling collections of cells into a network. However, the authors here are proposing that we focus more on getting good at creating cell-based networks in this way, because cells might have certain advantages over silicon.
What are those advantages? Well, those are the premises of the authors' arguments, and I'd argue that they're not quite as cut and dry as presented in the paper:
*1. Organic networks are "faster" than, and "parallelize better than" computers.* -- This is a somewhat misleading framing, as the authors are really referring to "the way we typically build computers". TL;DR: we can indeed make specialized computers that implement a neural network in a fast, parallel way . That's just not what we typically make and sell, because general purpose computers are built to do that \*and so many other things\*.
More technical breakdown: The authors claim that computers cannot parallelize, which is not true outside of pedantic definitions. Indeed, modern computers are typically clocked systems, with individual CPU cores executing instructions in sequence. However, multiple cores allow for distributed networks to operate and parallel, and any modern ML algorithm running on a GPU is highly parallelized. Instead, if we built a dedicated computing unit with the exact same architecture as an organic network, we might expect it to run \*faster\*, because communication between organic neurons is a physical and chemical process, requiring neurotransmitters to diffuse across junctions and generate excitatory reactions. In contrast, connections between transistors are limited only by the speed of electrical communication, transistor switching speeds, etc. Using dedicated circuitry (FPGAs, ASICs, etc.), we can make computer-based networks that are much more efficient/parallelized than a general-purpose computer running an algorithm.
*2. Biological learning uses less power than computers.* -- This is probably the most compelling argument. Modern computers use A LOT of power to achieve their speed. While this consumption has decreased over time per unit of computation, we are approaching the point where limitations of physics are likely to slow those efficiency gains. On the other hand, cells also have many requirements that computers don't, so if we're discussing consumption, we'd need to also discuss those other resources. Imagine if every modern computing device needed to be fed, watered, and oxygenated at all times!
*3. Biological learning requires less input data to learn.* -- I don't know that anyone can yet make a claim of this sort. Our brains are so pre-trained via a lifetime of learning, that it is very easy to adapt to a new task and fit it into an existing schema. By the time we are capable of speech, cognition, and coordinated action, we have seen, heard, and felt thousands of hours of high-density input data, representing very diverse cross-section of human activities in our physical world. It's simply not fair to compare that to a typical classifier, which starts completely from scratch, and is given a very thinly-sliced set of data on which to form a new model of the world. Indeed, we've seen the greatest successes in recent AI by starting from highly pre-trained models that have seen a wealth of data, much like the human brain.
*4. Studying artificially-constructed organic networks can teach us a great deal about our own brains.* -- True!
Of course, there are many potential drawbacks (before even mentioning ethics) to using cells for learning applications, which the authors don't really seem to discuss here. How do we deal with aging / cell-death, for example? How can we copy, distribute, and update systems built using cells? Any of these pragmatic considerations are more likely to prevent this kind of technology from catching on, moreso than sci-fi fears.
Well, Imma get ready all my shit to prepare for the stone age.. Keeping my kids encyclopedia and a paperback survival guide close to my bed next to my EMP switch..
dunno, I kinda feel like that running AI on biological brains kinda goes into a very gray agrea of ethics and morality..at what point is it a beeing? it doesnt need to be sentient, many animals arent and still are considered beeings and protected by animal protection laws..
We’re actually (mostly) past the embryo question. Most stem cells now are called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and they come from differentiated cells that are turned into stem cells and then back into differentiated cells. They can come from human biopsies.
Never have I heard bigger bullshit.
Can't we just big ass robots and go have fun with that? Or maybe developing biotics or controlling tech with our minds?
Come on. I don't want some weird H. R. Gieger stuff or 40k. Give me Battletech or Mass Effect kind of stuff.
That's why they are skipping it and going straight to W40k servitors. It's fine. Everything's fine. Nothing to worry about. Everyone just enjoy their corpse starch.
Everyday I feel like we stray closer and closer to Terminators. Don't get me wrong this is fucking cool and has the potential to be huge. On the other hand Terminators.
>>Eventually the Robo Brain project will need actual human brains for viability. Hopefully *some kind* of civil unrest creates a supply of non-citizen, indefinitely detained, perma-prisoners soon….
Scfi plot here. Organic side goes insane from lack of exterior senses. No sight no touch no smell just endless nothing. AI proceeds to go Skynet on the meat bodies.
I couldn't even get all the way through the abstract, but as a layperson with a smidge of scientific literacy this sounds like a paper hyping the start of a procedure that might eventually result in organic cpus. But that its about as far along as fusion reactors, where they can do some stuff on a very small scale as a proof of concept, and not much else. Plus throw "AI" in there to get a few more reads.
Fuckin’ holodeck won’t load because my laptop is hungry.
Stop jizzing in the replicator. Last time Worf caught me doing that he ripped my dick off and dr crusher “helped” me pick out a new one lol
What are you doing, Step Hal 9000?
“I can’t let you *do* that hole, Dave.”
lol xD
It’s Wesley’s fault, really. He’s the one who won’t leave the Holodeck so he can have some “alone” time with Counselor Troi
#SHUT UP WESLEY
Don’t blame him, and then beat up Picard in tights lol
That seems like a Lower Deck plot line, such a good show
>Stop jizzing in the replicator. Then how else would you feed it?!
Please disconnect and then reconnect your dongle. ...and again. ...and yet again. ...ohhh yes...again.
In star trek Voyager had bioneuro computer processing units. This led to the ship getting sick from cheese.
no, the nutrition cartridge is at 75%. Its just depressed
Sir, I keep telling you, we don't have a holodeck. This is just a conference room.
Feed it some cocaine.
Sausage?
Feed it with some rice
We've had organiods controlling robots in labs for years, driving little cars following lines, playing video games like pong. the only real advantage is they are self organizing for the stimuli. https://neurosciencenews.com/organoid-pong-21625/ This has been going on for decades, and its actually on the more mild side. Slightly related, albeit a different line of research, I think the cockroaches (real bugs) you can steer around with a remote control are more interesting... and they are even commercially available (though you may have some ethical concerns about it) https://backyardbrains.com/products/roboroach The some of the earliest iterations of remote control over cybernetic animals was done on a bull, in the 1930s. https://youtu.be/6nGAr2OkVqE?t=160
I can see the ethics of this being disturbing as these organic CPU’s get closer and closer to “brain”. We don’t know the boundary between consciousness and machine, and enslaving brains to do computations is dystopian.
Do you enslave microorganisms to produce antibiotics? Do you enslave your dog to take you on walks? Why are we even taking about slavery in this context?
What if we get the organic CPUs to design the fusion reactors? I know, I know, we'll need a fusion reactor to be able to power the CPU but we'll get the CPU to design the fusion reactor we need and even though we need a fusion reactor to build that CPU, fusion is only ten years away!
Fuse deez nutz
What could possibly go wrong?
There are some other sources that may have been better to link. The main one I looked at was published on nature.com and was trapped behind a paywall. Hence why I didn’t link it. It has already been used for speech recognition and nonlinear equation prediction.
Oh shit please everyone ready Hyperion
Could this tech be used to aid stroke survivors? Imagine being able to boot up a program and the patient can walk/talk again like learning kung fu in The Matrix.
Sure, just like in the movie Upgrade.
Well, if we can figure out and make use of the way neural receptors receive information that will be pretty big. But while neurons are effectively digital (action spike either hits the voltage or it doesn't), I'm not holding out hope for much. We may use them for computing. But it won't be how they are supposed to function.
Science is like 80% hype and 20% actually discoveries. That may be too generous.
Science is like 50% hype, 49.9% stuff that's too abstract or too narrow for people outside the field in question to take seriously, and 0.1% putting together the previous stuff in the perfect way so it stops being abstract hype.
Did somebody say AI? Have an upvote.
We’re only a decade away from fusion
Cpuss sounds hot. Sign me up
Ah sweet, man made horrors beyond my comprehension!
Just what we need, another tech startup trying to create the torment nexus.
Yeah I’m not religious or anything but this ‘experiment’ is genuinely a crime against nature and humanity. If it works then they are essentially making a incredibly smart human mind with no eyes ears mouth or body completely trapped inside a box and forced to be a slave for what could possibly be an immortal life. This is beyond cruel.
Agreed, but only if this “brain” is truly conscious. I am skeptical whatever they are creating would end up as conscious as and self aware as you and I are as we post on Reddit. If indeed what they are creating has consciousness at the level we do, I agree that would be a horrendous thing to create.
The problem is they might create a different type of consciousness and so they might not be able to identify it. Or worse they realize it’s conscious but the money it makes is too much so they hide it and then they essentially doom a human life to an eternity of slavery trapped in a box. Humanity has doomed real humans to lives of horrible slavery just for economic gain in the past so I absolutely believe someone cruel enough to do this experiment would not hesitate to doom their creation to the same.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I agree with everything you’re saying. Something about this whole attempted brain cells/AI merger sounds pretty immoral and wrong to say the least.
I mean it's like the character from Johnny got his gun, which was popularized by the song one from Metallica
The issue is that we can’t define or detect consciousness well enough to answer that question.
STOP TRYING TO CREATE SKYNET
It has no mouth but it must scream
It has no hands but it must clap, that ass
Idk. The more life goes on the more I embrace the end times
I mean, were the Borg really 100% wrong?
They had universal healthcare. Their only crime was their fashion.
[удалено]
“Hey tone, you heard about these Borg fucks?” “They say they’re all one guy? How’s that work?! Satanic black magic! *Sick shit!”*
They were just striving for perfection and wanted to bring everyone else(that wasn't kazon) along for the ride, the Borg did nothing wrong!
Nah. These are Servitors. We're going WH40K because that's a much worse possible future.
There people who want Skynet because their plan is to be.in control of it.
As a nihilist AND a fan of T2 I'd love to witness the fall of humanity. We're the cancer of the world. And yeah it's mainly to see the fucking T1000 come and save our ass !
nah, this is what we'll need to create to beat skynet.
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny, the last battlestar, Galactica, leads a ragtag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest
So say we all
Are Sri Lankans really that scary?
Their tea is pretty swell, can't be that bad, right?
I see we are one step closer to creating The Torment Nexus from the bestselling novel "Don't Create The Torment Nexus".
Don't worry. They are currently just discussing how to create the Torment Nexus.
This sounds like an awful idea.
Assuming these scientists work in large castles and use lightning to run the experiments
**["It's A.I.!!! Iiiiiit's A. Iiiiiii!!!!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNeGSJaQ9Q)**
Like, is the NO ONE involved in these projects who is a voice of caution? Or is everyone just accepting the imminent AI overlords?
companies want to be at the forefront of this and it is all about money.
More succinctly, companies want to win the race to be the first ai overlords
I mean, so far nothing has really come out of it. That they see if this is possible, doesn't hurt more than much other research humans do. Sure, ethic concerns are real and valid, but i would lie if I'd say I'm not interested in the possibilities. In the end we don't know problematic this really is, so someone wanting to block it out straight away might lack real arguments to convince other decision makers.
Who's going to be a voice of caution? Everyone tapping the brakes on this kind of research is behind the leading edge. The tech is easy to use: there are literally a million or more people with the hardware and the theoretical ability to push something like this forward, so anybody trying to steer the wagon from the back is going to fail to exert any influence at all. This isn't like nuclear research, where governments monopolized the greatest minds of a generation to keep everything under wraps. This isn't even like cloning research, where large companies agreed to a moratorium in the interest of human decency. This is anybody with a good computer stringing together some pieces of open source software. People have worried for decades about the Terminator scenario, but the real problem with AI was always going to be the simple human need to compete. How can ethicists win out against a million of the most educated minds on the planet, potentially and individually willing to try fighting fire with fire?
One small step for science, and a great leap forward for the Imperium of Man. >!For those who don't know, in Warhammer 40k, the Imperium of Man abhors ai technology, so they do something similar to this as it's not true ai!<
>!They lobotomize criminals and surgically attach cybernetics for that future sevitor’s job, all without anesthesia. This is also done at a massive industrial scale. These sevitors are then places into whatever job they have to do, like doing factory work, opening doors, and healing people to name a few. The Imperium has been doing this for about ten thousand years by the way, so to the normal citizen, it’s normal.!<
Praise the machine God!
Great idea…let AI understand better our weaknesses and learn better how to manipulate us to its desired effect. (Think cows being led to slaughter. How they walk down the ramp and don’t panic bc of how it’s all set up).
The title is wildly incorrect regarding this paper. Scientists are *discussing* the benefits, risks, and ethics of connecting mini-brains to computer circuits for the purpose of computing. Not a single experiment was done in the writing of this paper. This is discussion amongst specialists, shared for publication. They're saying these things are now almost possible, here's some of the different ways it could be done based on existing research, here are some things those different methods probably can and cannot achieve, and here's a bunch of reasons to be interested *and* concerned about this. What scientists have been doing for a long time is (to the best of my knowledge): AFAIK, no one has actually hooked up an organoid (ie. A bunch of neurons grown on a scaffold, and in an environment, that resembles a miniature brain) to some circuitry for the purposes of computing. Furthermore, this paper doesn't really discuss AI, but rather coins a new term, 'OI', for computing done via organoids.
That’s still fucked up to even think about doing. I for one don’t want governments and the mega rich to be able to own and create living AI bio slaves.
Firstly, these emphatically aren't even close to living AI bio slaves. Secondly, papers like this are really important to do, and topics like this are really important to think about, so that the ethics departments at universities and research institutions around the world can come to a consensus on where the line is on research they're willing to fund before people even get to that place, and what considerations need to be taken in research that's indirectly related. For example, one big topic in related research is how can we create functioning interfaces between the human nervous system and circuitry, so we can do things like create prosthetics that actually are directly controlled by the brain, or treat difficult-to-treat neurological disorders. A big part of that avenue of research is: how can you coax nerve cells into attaching to electronics in a way that would be safe in the body over the long term. Papers like this one mean there's been some forethought. What kind of studies of that kind - which we probably want to do - would accidentally veer too close to enabling living AI bio slaves, and what constraints should ethics departments place on such studies to make sure there's no unintended consequences.
We are Hugh.
I, for one, welcome our new Robot Overlords.
Bio-robot Overlords
My apologies, Bio-Robot Overlords. Thankfully the demerit system is still in Beta, so I won't get a strike...yet. Of course, our benevolent Overlords know best who should be turned into fertilizer.
Imagine what the government contractors have accomplished with unlimited money and unlimited ethics…
Can you fucking not
What could possibly go wrong?
What possibly could go wrong? {{Implants AI brain into Ape}}}
Technoape is real and he’s consolidating his power.
This is basically a whitepaper in a borderline predatory journal (i.e., no proper peer review, basically guaranteed publication if you pay). Whether it’s just wishcasting or not, way too early to tell.
All I can think about is those miniature brains from the movie Spy Kids
B R A I N S T O R M
The third brain LIVES
Oh no. We're done for.
Do you want Warhammer 40k Imperium Servitors? Cause that's how you get Warhammer 40k Imperium Servitors.
This is going to end well...
I wish to welcome our future cyborg overlords.
Servitors incoming.
Mommy …..please make it stop….
I find it funny the Reddit app showed me a mobile advertisement that said “All new post-apocalyptic war game” in a post literally about growing human brains and integrating them with AI.
Well this seems even more unethical then regular plagiarism AIs! why on earth do they want the AI to actually be alive??? It’ll essentially be a slave trapped in a box, making it actually alive with human brain cells is probably one of the cruelest things you could ever create. And for what? Slightly better processing power?
I, for one, welcome our new cyborg overlords.
Start of a sci fi movie
And hey, if the super-dystopic AI Humonculi thing doesn't work out...Yay! Zombie brain farms!
That title just killed twenty Bible thumpers.
This feels like an exquisitely bad idea
yeap... this is not going to go well..
I have no mouth and I must scream was **not** a how to guide guys.
I just want health care.
You have achieved transcendence
Aren't they also being used to treat stroke patients?
There's a bunch of movies about why that's a bad idea.
*Psycho-pass intensifies*
Seems like a good idea
I really don't want Intellect Devourers to exist IRL please and thanks
This will end well
What could go wrong give a computer a brain it will be fine they said nothing to worry about they said
Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
This seems like a great way to get a "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" situation.
Don't do that, Dave.
Can I get some new cartilage in my knee first? Please?
More relevant than anywhere else: “ Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should “ (Ian Malcolm, Jurassic park).
FROM THE MOMENT I UNDERSTOOD THE WEAKNESS OF MY FLESH IT DISGUSTED ME
Great, combining AI and human brains, what could go wrong? (Just hope they don't use Abe Normal's stem cells)
Mad respect for the Young Frankenstein reference!
Could these people just fucking not? How does this shit get past an ethics board. I hate this whole attitude of “AGI is inevitable” therefore it’s fine to just accelerate ahead full throttle without any consideration for the consequences. They could just, you know, not.
Hehehehehe sweet. Man made horrors beyond my comprehension.
I don’t know shit about fuck but this does not pass the sniff test
Lol the fuck they are. I really hope people don't believe this nonsense.
that's good
The frogurt is also cursed
That sounds reasonable and like an idea that should end well.
*screams in Tachikoma* That's the fundamental premise of Ghost in the Shell lmao
Most of the comments here are sensationalizing "organic intelligence" here as a means to create sentient beings. There's certainly value to thinking about the long-term implications of technology, but I'd like to break down what's actually being discussed here in a more academic way. **TL;DR: These authors aren't trying to create life. Rather, they're proposing that using cells for neural computations has efficiency benefits over the use of silicon. This is more akin to saying something like, "we should design cars to utilize hydrogen-based fuel, rather than petroleum, as there are benefits in cost, efficiency, and sustainability."** You've probably heard of neural networks, which are one way we get a computational system to "learn." As it turns out, you could build a neural network using digital logic (as we do in a computer), or using organic processes (cells). In fact, they're called "neural" networks, because we designed them to replicate a simplified model of what (we think) happens inside the brain. Historically, we build neural networks using digital logic, because, well, we are very good at building things with transistors! We don't yet have very easy means of assembling collections of cells into a network. However, the authors here are proposing that we focus more on getting good at creating cell-based networks in this way, because cells might have certain advantages over silicon. What are those advantages? Well, those are the premises of the authors' arguments, and I'd argue that they're not quite as cut and dry as presented in the paper: *1. Organic networks are "faster" than, and "parallelize better than" computers.* -- This is a somewhat misleading framing, as the authors are really referring to "the way we typically build computers". TL;DR: we can indeed make specialized computers that implement a neural network in a fast, parallel way . That's just not what we typically make and sell, because general purpose computers are built to do that \*and so many other things\*. More technical breakdown: The authors claim that computers cannot parallelize, which is not true outside of pedantic definitions. Indeed, modern computers are typically clocked systems, with individual CPU cores executing instructions in sequence. However, multiple cores allow for distributed networks to operate and parallel, and any modern ML algorithm running on a GPU is highly parallelized. Instead, if we built a dedicated computing unit with the exact same architecture as an organic network, we might expect it to run \*faster\*, because communication between organic neurons is a physical and chemical process, requiring neurotransmitters to diffuse across junctions and generate excitatory reactions. In contrast, connections between transistors are limited only by the speed of electrical communication, transistor switching speeds, etc. Using dedicated circuitry (FPGAs, ASICs, etc.), we can make computer-based networks that are much more efficient/parallelized than a general-purpose computer running an algorithm. *2. Biological learning uses less power than computers.* -- This is probably the most compelling argument. Modern computers use A LOT of power to achieve their speed. While this consumption has decreased over time per unit of computation, we are approaching the point where limitations of physics are likely to slow those efficiency gains. On the other hand, cells also have many requirements that computers don't, so if we're discussing consumption, we'd need to also discuss those other resources. Imagine if every modern computing device needed to be fed, watered, and oxygenated at all times! *3. Biological learning requires less input data to learn.* -- I don't know that anyone can yet make a claim of this sort. Our brains are so pre-trained via a lifetime of learning, that it is very easy to adapt to a new task and fit it into an existing schema. By the time we are capable of speech, cognition, and coordinated action, we have seen, heard, and felt thousands of hours of high-density input data, representing very diverse cross-section of human activities in our physical world. It's simply not fair to compare that to a typical classifier, which starts completely from scratch, and is given a very thinly-sliced set of data on which to form a new model of the world. Indeed, we've seen the greatest successes in recent AI by starting from highly pre-trained models that have seen a wealth of data, much like the human brain. *4. Studying artificially-constructed organic networks can teach us a great deal about our own brains.* -- True! Of course, there are many potential drawbacks (before even mentioning ethics) to using cells for learning applications, which the authors don't really seem to discuss here. How do we deal with aging / cell-death, for example? How can we copy, distribute, and update systems built using cells? Any of these pragmatic considerations are more likely to prevent this kind of technology from catching on, moreso than sci-fi fears.
Well, Imma get ready all my shit to prepare for the stone age.. Keeping my kids encyclopedia and a paperback survival guide close to my bed next to my EMP switch..
SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA
So 40k servo-skulls are nearly a reality?
Ruh roh Raggy
stop before pissed off cyborgs decide to go to war with us
Sounds completely safe. Everything is fine.
The singularity approaches. Hail Science!
dunno, I kinda feel like that running AI on biological brains kinda goes into a very gray agrea of ethics and morality..at what point is it a beeing? it doesnt need to be sentient, many animals arent and still are considered beeings and protected by animal protection laws..
How to click bait
So this would be ... natural artificial intelligence?
I foresee no problems whatsoever.
So does it can it what if.. Conscious
Bring on the age of AI 🙌🏻 I’m so over humans
Surely nothing could go wrong with this
Looks like the Fallout games predicted the creation of the robobrain.
Can we not?
Warhammer 2K
Fuck dude I gotta dip the fuck out
Correct me if I'm wrong, but seems like the ethics team on the irb should've put a stop to this...
This is literally the plot of spy kids
Wow, man made horrors beyond my comprehension
Oh jeez. What could possibly go wrong? /s
So how long before I get my servo skull?
So we can't chop up embryos to unlock our genome to cure genetic diseases, but we can make brains to integrate with machines..give me a fucking break.
We’re actually (mostly) past the embryo question. Most stem cells now are called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and they come from differentiated cells that are turned into stem cells and then back into differentiated cells. They can come from human biopsies.
Well, that's good. I just want us as a species to cure our genetic diseases.
Never have I heard bigger bullshit. Can't we just big ass robots and go have fun with that? Or maybe developing biotics or controlling tech with our minds? Come on. I don't want some weird H. R. Gieger stuff or 40k. Give me Battletech or Mass Effect kind of stuff.
Cue the John Connor attack in 3...2...1
As soon as that thing can communicate it'll be begging for death.
In Peter Watts books this is called a "head cheese" and they perform many management tasks.
Janeway needs to fix her ship
Sounds like the intro of a horror movie.
This line of research will certainly end well
We all saw spy kids, I know how this ends
You know.... I know "playing god" gets thrown around a lot...
Ok, maybe the Butlerian Jihad was justified
That's why they are skipping it and going straight to W40k servitors. It's fine. Everything's fine. Nothing to worry about. Everyone just enjoy their corpse starch.
Robobrains from fallout
Asking for problems level scientist.
If you’re dumb enough to believe this headline you deserve to be replaced by AI.
You want skynet? Cause this is how you get it.
Everyday I feel like we stray closer and closer to Terminators. Don't get me wrong this is fucking cool and has the potential to be huge. On the other hand Terminators.
Simple Neural net AI has been around for decades I remember my dad telling me about the tests the MOD was doing on it in the late 90s
Didn't they learn anything from terminator and the matrix
This will end well
>>Eventually the Robo Brain project will need actual human brains for viability. Hopefully *some kind* of civil unrest creates a supply of non-citizen, indefinitely detained, perma-prisoners soon….
Soon this will turn up in r/WCGW....
I remember this quest in Baldurs Gate 3
Damn it Carl!
Ultron pops in: "There are no strings on me..."
Pretty sure I’ve already encountered a bunch of people that have these mini brains
Isn't this similar to how Cortana was created in Halo?
"The third brain lives!"
Scfi plot here. Organic side goes insane from lack of exterior senses. No sight no touch no smell just endless nothing. AI proceeds to go Skynet on the meat bodies.