Live data from Hacker News

Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

newscientist.com

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#71
The New Scientist part before the paywall mentions only human brain cells, but the paper is specifically about cells "integrated with in silico computing via high-density multielectrode array". The abstract:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.471005v1

Integrating neurons into digital systems to leverage their innate intelligence may enable performance infeasible with silicon alone, along with providing insight into the cellular origin of intelligence. We developed DishBrain, a system which exhibits natural intelligence by harnessing the inherent adaptive computation of neurons in a structured environment. In vitro neural networks from human or rodent origins, are integrated with in silico computing via high-density multielectrode array. Through electrophysiological stimulation and recording, cultures were embedded in a simulated game-world, mimicking the arcade game ‘Pong’. Applying a previously untestable theory of active inference via the Free Energy Principle, we found that learning was apparent within five minutes of real-time gameplay, not observed in control conditions. Further experiments demonstrate the importance of closed-loop structured feedback in eliciting learning over time. Cultures display the ability to self-organise in a goal-directed manner in response to sparse sensory information about the consequences of their actions.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#73

As far as I can tell, this is just a clever trick. The cultured neurons aren't really learning anything. The researchers are stimulating one side of the array (top or bottom), to indicate if the ball is above or below the paddle, and based on the ensuing response the computer moves the paddle up or down. Here's the trick - if you stimulate a group of neurons, their spontaneous activity will be (briefly) different fro…

I’m really disillusioned by science this year. Almost every study I’ve read about on hn in the last year had serious methodology issues

I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works. As has been said, reality has a surprising amount of detail. This means that, outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible. So you do your level best to create a good methodology under the constraints of time, technology and proper understanding, and roll out the experiment.

Filling in the cracks of doubt is a big part of what replication and productionizing is for. Of you think a study has a big enough hole in it's methodology, you are free to go design your own study to try to plug the hole or refute the result.

A corollary, though, is that there is always going to be a 'hole' big enough for a jackass on the internet to criticize. But the question is whether you're willing to put the skin in the game to see if the result holds when you design a study to exploit the hole.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#74
post #16

Full paper on bioRxiv: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.02.471005v1

"In vitro neurons learn and exhibit sentience when embodied in a simulated game-world" Exhibiting sentience, that's a bit awkward ethically speaking.. Even though this type of testing will help us understand how our brains work.

Sentient means "Physiology. Of organs or tissues: Responsive to sensory stimuli." or more generally, "That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses." and "Conscious or percipient of something."

It doesn't mean human intelligence or consciousness.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m really disillusioned by science this year. Almost every study I’ve read about on hn in the last year had serious methodology issues

I think many non scientists have a bit of a wrong idea of how science actually works. As has been said, reality has a surprising amount of detail. This means that, outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible. So you do your level best to create a good methodology under the constraints of time, technology and proper understanding, and roll out the experiment. Filling in the cracks of doubt is a big part of…

> outside mathematics, perfect methodology is impossible

Even in mathematics ... others on HN are better qualified than I am to comment, but I've read mathematicians say that almost no reader of a paper works out all the math; to a degree they go by reputation of the author that the mathematics is generally correct.

Similarly to your comment, while outsiders envision perfection, people inside have limited time for it. It may be more productive to spend that time on new research than on investigating every little detail of old research.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ethics only comes in when they exhibit consciousness.

You can't prove anything is conscious. How would you test for that?

You connect it and one of the researchers to a chat window and the one that first convinces some third party they're conscious gets let out.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#77
post #3

They should also compare human brain cells with chimp/dog/... brain cells. See if the human ones perform better, which would suggest there is an advantage even at the lowest cellular level.

https://singularityhub.com/2010/10/06/videos-of-robot-contro...

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#78

As far as I can tell, this is just a clever trick. The cultured neurons aren't really learning anything. The researchers are stimulating one side of the array (top or bottom), to indicate if the ball is above or below the paddle, and based on the ensuing response the computer moves the paddle up or down. Here's the trick - if you stimulate a group of neurons, their spontaneous activity will be (briefly) different fro…

Their electrode configuration has predetermined non-overlapping sensory and motor areas.

So it would be more like having a whole bunch of cats lined up and spraying water onto the cat corresponding to the ball position, while listening for the hissing from some other cats to determine where to move the paddle. The random stimulus as feedback when the ball resets corresponds to spraying the cats unpredictably.

To avoid that punishment, the cats need to work together to make the right cats hiss at the right time to intercept the ball with the paddle. (The underlying theory is that cats are okay with being sprayed as long as they can predict it, a.k.a. the Free Energy Principle.)

The fact that this feedback increases performance relative to the other experimental conditions indicates that some adaptation is going on in the network.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#79
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In vitro neurons learn and exhibit sentience when embodied in a simulated game-world" Exhibiting sentience, that's a bit awkward ethically speaking.. Even though this type of testing will help us understand how our brains work.

Sentient means " Physiology . Of organs or tissues: Responsive to sensory stimuli." or more generally, "That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation or of perception by the senses." and "Conscious or percipient of something." It doesn't mean human intelligence or consciousness.

Sapience and sentience is the differentiating language for what you're describing.

Re: Clumps of human brain cells in a dish can learn to play Pong faster than an AI

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go read Dan Simmons Hyperion Cantos

I'm starting the second book right now and I'm hoping this hasn't spoiled anything. There hasn't really been mention yet of using human brain cells, other than that cybrids (biologically human bodies with AIs in the driver's seat) are a thing.

It gets weirder... and I would contend that it is appropriate / necessary to read all four books to get a broader picture of the universe in which it takes place. ... And if you have the stamina for it, audio book it again afterwards so that you can't skim over the "boring" parts that you think you already know.
Post reply on HN