Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

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

#91

Post by q1w2 »

titzer wrote: post #86
newsbinator wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the original premise of The Matrix, but it was decided that would be too complicated for the general public to handle, so they made it "the machines use humans as batteries".

I mean, in a twisted but also maybe vacuous way, the Matrix already exists in this form, as thousands of electrical engineers and millions of software engineers are being fed as reward for designing upgrades to the global computer system as it gains robustness, speed, but also power and control. It somehow tricked us into spending two Irelands worth of electricity on blockchain hardware. It might have a screw loose o…

It's interesting to think that we are currently part of what the future AI(s) will consider their abiogenesis moment of creation.

I wonder if they'll one day far in the future debate the nature of their genesis and how common it is in the universe.

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

#92

Post by tartoran »

CactusOnFire wrote: post #2

The concept of using human neural networks instead of artificial neural networks is both terrifying and intriguing.

Maybe the idea of using real human braincells cultured, extracted or salvaged from humans is terrifying but if indeed more efficent, it could help guide us away from a potential dead we could be on at the moment. What I still find more terrifying is having something really more powerful than a human brain not in raw power but in general intelligence with all human subtleties and all. The idea is not terrifying by itself but the potential of a bad actor using this for nefarious ends.

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

#93

Post by SubiculumCode »

gentleman11 wrote: post #65
subroutine wrote: post #60

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'll break it down in a couple of bullet points.

1. Science is hard.

2. There is no such thing as a perfect study. Every method/methodology has weaknesses. Look for converging evidence across multiple studies which use different designs.

3. Initial studies often do not have the funding needed to do things as optimally as possible in a single study, but they do provide evidence for ideas that can be pursued further.

4. It is often socially safer to point out deficiencies than to praise strengths. Same as snobs raining down on you when you say you like some midrange wine.

5. Often issues will be raised that are already acknowledged by the authors.

6. Complaints are often based on inaccurate news reporting, not actual research.

7. Science is hard.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

dragontamer wrote: post #29

With "Evangelion" being in the (Hacker) news recently, I hope to remind people of this one scene... An advanced AI named "The Three Magi" (which are 3-programs which vote for strategic effects) exists in the show. Without going too much into details, a problem occurs in the AI, so the lead scientist Ritsuko steps into the machine to check things out. She comes with a circular saw. She cuts open one computer (the one…

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by wolverine876 »

gus_massa wrote: post #89
wolverine876 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's in the HN comments more than in the research. IME, for as long as I've read HN, commenters have claimed to have found errors in methodology or similar basic problems. I don't know if I've seen any research posted that didn't receive that response.

Note that it's increasingly common to discuss preprints, like in this case. A preprint is as reliable as a blog post in WordPress, unless you work in the area and know that the author has a solid track record. Also, most results that reach the front page here are groundbreaking. But groundbreaking results are very rare, so most of them must be fake, because they have an error or because they are an exaggeration. Most…

> A preprint is as reliable as a blog post in WordPress, unless you work in the area and know that the author has a solid track record.

While preprints lack some work and signals of reliability, such as peer review, revisions by the author, etc., I think they are far beyond blog posts. Imagine a blog post, by an expert in the domain, with the amount of research and precision that goes into a preprint - there's no comparison.

Nothing, not even a peer-reviewed article in Nature, is so reliable that we can just put away our critical thinking.

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

#96

Post by samus »

shagie wrote: post #80
newsbinator wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I noticed there are actually big differences in world building between the first two and the last two books. The interesting thing is that they can be explained away in-universe with time shenanigans and unreliable narrators. Also, I heard a fan theory that argues that Martinus Silenius is a failed John Keats cybrid himself.

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

#97

Post by wolverine876 »

zzt123 wrote: post #83
wolverine876 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's in the HN comments more than in the research. IME, for as long as I've read HN, commenters have claimed to have found errors in methodology or similar basic problems. I don't know if I've seen any research posted that didn't receive that response.

I feel like academica kind of incentivizes this. It’s hard to resist without a good base of support, and I feel like having such a base isn’t the average. I notice this pressure felt strongly across the board by my friends who are adjuncts (or tenure-track, but not yet tenured) in the soft sciences. But this is just anecdotal of course.

> I feel like academica kind of incentivizes this. It’s hard to resist without a good base of support

Incentivizes what? What is hard to resist?

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

#98

Post by wolverine876 »

parineum wrote: post #79
wolverine876 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To get into the weeds a little, I've used 'sapient' that way but I haven't found any good source saying that others do the same (except you! Terry? Is that you? ;) ). The leading dictionaries I've looked in talk about 'wisdom' and 'sagacity', not 'human-level intelligence and conciousness'. However, I haven't found a better word than 'sapient' for the latter meaning. So,

* Do you know a source that defines it 'our' way?

* Do you know another word to use for the latter meaning?

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

#99

Post by signal4him »

wolverine876 wrote: post #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 providin…

The last bit is a spicy summation of what we're all here for.

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

#100

Post by parineum »

wolverine876 wrote: post #98
parineum wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To get into the weeds a little, I've used 'sapient' that way but I haven't found any good source saying that others do the same (except you! Terry? Is that you? ;) ). The leading dictionaries I've looked in talk about 'wisdom' and 'sagacity', not 'human-level intelligence and conciousness'. However, I haven't found a better word than 'sapient' for the latter meaning. So, * Do you know a source that defines it 'our' w…

I'm not Terry so there are at least three of us!

I don't know exactly where I picked that up but it seems to be generally accurate. https://grammarist.com/usage/sentience-vs-sapience/

Post reply on HN