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

I'm scared about biological computing

kuber.studio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 271 posts

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#131

Post by batch12 »

noosphr wrote: post #127
pjs_ wrote: post #25

Be careful about how you interpret that paper. It looks really impressive -- real neurons in a petri dish seem to successfully (if amateurishly) murk a few imps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE But there's more to the setup than you might assume from a casual reading. Here's the code used for that demo: https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron So there is an entire pytorch stack wrapped around the myster…

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

> using live animals as the computational substrate. Use the visual cortex of one as the input, send the neural spikes to a second animals frontal lobe for computation and finally send those signals to a third animals motor cortex to physically press buttons.

That sounds terrifying.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#132

Post by virgildotcodes »

noosphr wrote: post #127
pjs_ wrote: post #25

Be careful about how you interpret that paper. It looks really impressive -- real neurons in a petri dish seem to successfully (if amateurishly) murk a few imps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE But there's more to the setup than you might assume from a casual reading. Here's the code used for that demo: https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron So there is an entire pytorch stack wrapped around the myster…

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

This sounds nightmarish. Maybe we build a human centipede if we can get the VC funding next?

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#133

Post by adamsmark »

0dayz wrote: post #124
kjkjadksj wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day vegans play the same game as meat eaters where some line is drawn. For meat eaters it is with livestock meats and for pescatarians that is no go, but fish are alright. And for vegans that is all off limits. Except of course the life we deem base enough to not care it is being eaten alive. Slaughter all the lettuce you want. There are no lettuce advocates. All this to say the moral arguments are…

AFAIK vegans base their argument on the degree of consciousness a living being had and compromise on the least evil. Most meat eaters base it on closeness to said living thing. It'll be interesting to see if the veganism movement survives lab grown meat that is ethically produced.

It wouldn't continue in any real form. Maybe cholesterol conscious and devout buddhists will still try to adhere, but beyond that I don't see what the point would be.

It would be like how Ozempic lead to a mysterious quieting of Body Positivity/Health at Every Size advocates. They were a vocal minority, there was much "debate" and cri de couer from many sides and now its all evaporated without a farewell or explicit winding down.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#134

Post by noosphr »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #132
noosphr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

This sounds nightmarish. Maybe we build a human centipede if we can get the VC funding next?

I would have been quite happy to use my own brain as the computational substrate and I had more than a few other people keen to be the input and output parts of the system.

It's rather unfortunate that in the West it is impossible to get elective brain surgery. The countries that will do it have at best a spotty record. I talked to someone who had it done in Brazil and their electrodes became dislodged after a few months.

There is nothing new or horrifying about self experimentation. Newton for one did it in conditions that were far more dangerous: https://psmag.com/social-justice/newtons-needle-scientific-s...

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#135

Post by roxolotl »

noosphr wrote: post #127
pjs_ wrote: post #25

Be careful about how you interpret that paper. It looks really impressive -- real neurons in a petri dish seem to successfully (if amateurishly) murk a few imps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE But there's more to the setup than you might assume from a casual reading. Here's the code used for that demo: https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron So there is an entire pytorch stack wrapped around the myster…

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

Reminds me of the head transplant experiments. The stuff of nightmares but also fascinating.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#136

Post by virgildotcodes »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #122
philips wrote: post #2

I think this is the same ethical questions of veganism and our use/abuse of biological systems. This is an excerpt from "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini > After forty years of vegetarianism, Max Berger was about to sit down to a feast of pork sausages, crispy bacon and pan-fried chicken breast. Max had always missed the taste of meat, but his principles were stronger than his culinary cravings. But…

At the end of the day vegans play the same game as meat eaters where some line is drawn. For meat eaters it is with livestock meats and for pescatarians that is no go, but fish are alright. And for vegans that is all off limits. Except of course the life we deem base enough to not care it is being eaten alive. Slaughter all the lettuce you want. There are no lettuce advocates. All this to say the moral arguments are…

This is not a good argument.

Vegans base their line on a very easily defensible ability on behalf of the victim - sentience.

If there’s no sentience, there’s nobody within to experience the pain and fear, and there is no victim.

That said, even if you granted that every blade of grass and kernel of corn was fully as sentient as a human being, that would only strengthen the argument for veganism many times over as animals act as inefficient intermediaries for those plant calories, burning most of them and leaving only a small fraction in their meat. You’d kill far fewer plants by eating the plants directly.

Finally, to your other point, many humans die horrible deaths - whether in global poverty, war or of various types of disease, cancer and dementia in the wealthier countries. That of course does not justify serial killer cannibals who put a bullet in the back of their victims’ heads on the basis that they’re giving them a “humane” end and likely saving them a large amount of future suffering.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#137

Post by protocolture »

philips wrote: post #12
LeCompteSftware wrote: post #7

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…

>I feel that "YouTube makes you an idiot" is a misdiagnosis.

Signal/noise is much worse (arguably books are catching up thanks to LLMs)

People see emotional signals in youtube videos. They respond to vocal tone, facial expressions, these are known to circumvent critical thinking. Like if you examine crowds of science deniers the usual commonality is that they are having a parasocial relationship with a bunch of youtube creators who are nice to them and reinforce their beliefs. The actual content of the belief is irrelevant, if you are disagreeing with the belief, you are attacking their tribe. Not limited to science deniers either, you get this hacking of human tribal psychology even in stuff like people who watch computer game videos. They pick a few champions of their tribe and follow them without critical examination of the content. At least with a book, while this is still possible its much harder. Its also telling that a lot of cranks who published junk science have all migrated to youtube.

I dont think youtube makes you an idiot, so much as youtube content is designed to bypass your critical defenses and overwhelm you. It develops into a blind spot. People can be perfectly rational in most areas and then suddenly burp up some absolute nonsense they caught on youtube.

Oh and the best part, is when you point this out to someone they tend to go "Oh yeah that totally happens... except for my favourite youtube channel which does x and y and z and yes of course I buy all their products and donate to their charities"

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#138

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

rubslopes wrote: post #43
myrmidon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not follow. Just because biological brains can be conscious does not mean that all of them are, the same way that not every computer is running windows XP. Why would you expect more concern from people about biological computing? It's not even demonstrated feasibility yet, while LLM based "AI" is already widely used.

Correct. Still, the day we manage to run a full LLM on biological neurons, even if using conventional code under the hood, will be a very interesting day for consciousness discussions.

If we do manage to run full LLM (Large language models) on biological neurons, we will still continue to use it to generate code or the same way we have been using it given that its an LLM and it functions like one that you, I or the rest of the world uses at the moment.

Sure some consciousness discussions will arise but guess what, you are already within a consciousness discussion and there are quite a lot of people (recently, richard dawkin believing "claudia" is conscious)

Although it will make up for a "wow, we really did it" moment, it will be met with hollowness, just like how when Chatgpt 3 had first launched, I remember really thinking that its like jarvis and the movies but then the next part that I remember is the hollowness which followed as Internet has made these bots gain voices and dampen the voices of humans online as we have created a system where one human can't hear another without incredible noise and the hollowing of internet in many cases.

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#139

Post by virgildotcodes »

noosphr wrote: post #134
virgildotcodes wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds nightmarish. Maybe we build a human centipede if we can get the VC funding next?

I would have been quite happy to use my own brain as the computational substrate and I had more than a few other people keen to be the input and output parts of the system. It's rather unfortunate that in the West it is impossible to get elective brain surgery. The countries that will do it have at best a spotty record. I talked to someone who had it done in Brazil and their electrodes became dislodged after a few mo…

I'm totally fine with consensual human experimentation that somehow threads the needle around exploitation of the poor - just not sure how we do the latter part short of requiring experimentees to pass a minimum net-worth threshold?

Re: I'm scared about biological computing

#140

Post by stackghost »

noosphr wrote: post #127
pjs_ wrote: post #25

Be careful about how you interpret that paper. It looks really impressive -- real neurons in a petri dish seem to successfully (if amateurishly) murk a few imps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRV8fSw6HaE But there's more to the setup than you might assume from a casual reading. Here's the code used for that demo: https://github.com/SeanCole02/doom-neuron So there is an entire pytorch stack wrapped around the myster…

All opinions are my own: The whole point of the CNNs is to act like a auto encoder for input and an auto decoder for output. The only reason why this is done in the first place is because the number of electrodes in the dish is pitiful and has no chance of describing something as complex as Doom. They are there to create a latent space that can be fed through 60 odd electrodes and decode the neuron latent space into…

>What I wanted to do after dish brain pong, but never had the budget for, was using live animals as the computational substrate.

What does the ethical due diligence process look like, for something like this?

Post reply on HN