Live data from Hacker News

I'm scared about biological computing

kuber.studio

11–20 of 271 posts

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#11
"Where do we draw the line?"

There will be no line as long as there is the rush to win the capitalist game.

UNTIL -> The ball of neurons begins outthinking the humans. Probably also fused with some AI augmentation.

It only takes a few percentage points for a Human to outthink a Chimp. This new 'thing' will dominate the humans.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#12

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I feel that "YouTube makes you an idiot" is a misdiagnosis. And one I hear frequently.

Books can make you an idiot too- I think of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" or "Grit" or any number of pseudo-science best seller books. These books end up capturing the public imagination in big ways too- Grit caused some government policy in the US around when it was popular.

The difference, I suppose, is that YouTube works faster by having many different people presenting the same bad ideas that the algorithm has helped you to buy into.

On the other hand there are amazing and useful YouTube channels that I use all the time like Practical Engineering, Crafsman, Technology Connections, Park Tools, SciShow, Crash Course, and on and on.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#13

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

Converting an image to numbers, doesn't automatically scream, this isn't seeing.

The brain does a lot of manipulation of the input images, the pixels from the retina, that doesn't sound far from just linear algebra.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#14
post #12

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I feel that "YouTube makes you an idiot" is a misdiagnosis. And one I hear frequently. Books can make you an idiot too- I think of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" or "Grit" or any number of pseudo-science best seller books. These books end up capturing the public imagination in big ways too- Grit caused some government policy in the US around when it was popular. The difference, I suppose, is that YouTube works faster by having…

Exactly.

The Printing Press is good example, one of the first books was on "witch hunting", which panicked people, and lead to a lot of deaths. The first, 'conspiracy theory' to sweep over humans.

Humans are just highly susceptible to manipulation. YouTube is just taking it to next level. Like the difference in eating coca leaves, versus snorting coke.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#15

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I really do suck at DOOM - and I did read the paper about BNNs, so I anticipated how it works, doesn't make it any less interesting [0] Playing DOOM is playing DOOM - if it's through your keyboard or mouse of progressing through the game states to move forward - hope that makes sense. 0 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.11632

The point is that it doesn't really make sense to say they're "seeing" anything. You said

  So… are the neurons on that chip seeing?

  We all desperately want to say no.
But I can confidently say "no, that's totally childish, the neurons are clearly not seeing anything." And in fact it's not even especially clear that they're "playing DOOM" vs. hitting a biased random number generator in response to carefully preprocessed inputs that come from DOOM. There is a major distinction when the enemy positions are directly piped into the brain.

Again I share the ethical concern about this stuff. But your blog post is quite misleading.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#16
post #6
post #3

Anyone who believes AI running on silicon could in principle be conscious has to believe that biological computers are conscious, right? Why aren't those people voicing more concerns?

If ai running on silicon can be conscious - does it imply that the same calculation done by a human with pen and paper is also conscious?

I think so! You independently stumbled upon the "China brain" thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain - is "the nation of china simulating a brain" conscious?

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#17

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I don't think the average YouTube influencer is growing 200,000 human neurons.

This did have some real scientific backing. Even if the 'result's are hyped.

It is little extreme to call this false because it appeared on YouTube.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#18
post #12

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I feel that "YouTube makes you an idiot" is a misdiagnosis. And one I hear frequently. Books can make you an idiot too- I think of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" or "Grit" or any number of pseudo-science best seller books. These books end up capturing the public imagination in big ways too- Grit caused some government policy in the US around when it was popular. The difference, I suppose, is that YouTube works faster by having…

The nice thing about books vs. YouTube is that it's much easier to critically interrogate books while you're reading them. That was the difference with my dad: he thought about what he read. He repeats what he listens to on YouTube.

I hate the proliferation of audiobooks too, by the way. It's the exact same problem.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#19
post #6
post #3

Anyone who believes AI running on silicon could in principle be conscious has to believe that biological computers are conscious, right? Why aren't those people voicing more concerns?

If ai running on silicon can be conscious - does it imply that the same calculation done by a human with pen and paper is also conscious?

I think this comes from our rather nebulous definition of "consciousness".

We have this natural tendancy to impose our feelings of self on the definition of consciousness. Its hard to accept that all of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours could be calculated by a human with pen and paper (with enough humans and developments in neurobiological research).

I believe we will have to reckon with these loose definitions and eventually realize how lacking in utility they are for describing engineered intellegence.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#20

An underappreciated source of nonsense in 21st century discourse is people watching YouTube instead of reading things. It doesn't appear this author read anything, preferring to be spooked and misled by a YouTube video. trained them to play DOOM - honestly better than I do. Maybe the author really really sucks at DOOM, but I think this is a false embellishment: >> While the neurons can play the game better than a ran…

I don't think the average YouTube influencer is growing 200,000 human neurons. This did have some real scientific backing. Even if the 'result's are hyped. It is little extreme to call this false because it appeared on YouTube.

That's not what I said, I said the blog post was false because the author thoughtlessly digested a YouTube video. It looks like the blog invented some details that weren't actually in the video.
Post reply on HN