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

Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#101

Post by simonh »

austinjp wrote: post #34
sidewndr46 wrote: post #5

A question for someone who understands the neurology and biology of this much more than I do: Once I have a group of neurons like this trained to do something, can I actually count on them to continue performing that task until they die? Or is it possible they spontaneously reorganize or "learn" a previously unseen behavioral pattern?

They're biological. A lot can happen :) Remember this includes weirdness like viruses, tumors, aging... as well as specifically neural stuff like habituation (diminished sensitivity to repeated stimulation), sensitisation (increased sensitivity to repeated stimulation), spontaneous misfiring, reorganisation (basically creating/destroying or upweighting/downweighting synapses) etc etc etc. Of course, then you'll need…

“Did you send your computer in for repair?”

“No, therapy.”

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#103

Post by fragmede »

dillondoyle wrote: post #91
nier wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who like me are wondering where those neurons come from. An answer can be found in the Ars Technica article: “[...] the researchers tested two types of neurons: some dissected from mouse embryos, and others produced by inducing human stem cells to form neurons. ”

Finally a sliver of future I'm psyched about. Induce stem cells to form neurons? Next step induce new neurons to form new connections in existing brain!?

That would be cool, though current research on adult neurogenesis says we keep getting new neurons throughout life anyway

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#104

Post by EricMausler »

austinjp wrote: post #49
seydor wrote: post #4

i would urge people to read the paper instead. The 'learning' is a bit iffy , and this was meant to test the brain theory of Friston rather than plug neurons into pong. Still, great job on the neurotechnology involved and a step in the direction where we should be going, controlling large numbers of neurons Ars Technica has a better article, although they dont describe the dense electode array correctly: https://arst…

Genuine question: why "should" we be going in this direction?

To fight neurodegenerative diseases

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#106

Post by reuben364 »

austinjp wrote: post #53
wruza wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To evaluate these chances, one has to understand what “suffering” is. It may (or may not) be purely evolutional thing which cannot be easily reproduced in a dish. Perhaps the whole thing is a plague that only emerges in/for natural-life conditions. While the configuration space is likely(?) almost infinite, the natural selector is only one.

Well.... no. It's only necessary to know whether suffering exists (it does). After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be). That's enough to say "let's not do this until we have better data". If it turns out the second step is unknowable, that's enough to say "let's never do this". These are subjective decisions, and some may suggest that there ar…

But it's always unknowable. The only consciousness/suffering one truly knows is one's own. We just use heuristics like "this human/animal behaves like I do when suffering". Where we draw the line is completely arbitrary.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#107

Post by austinjp »

reuben364 wrote: post #106
austinjp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well.... no. It's only necessary to know whether suffering exists (it does). After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be). That's enough to say "let's not do this until we have better data". If it turns out the second step is unknowable, that's enough to say "let's never do this". These are subjective decisions, and some may suggest that there ar…

But it's always unknowable. The only consciousness/suffering one truly knows is one's own. We just use heuristics like "this human/animal behaves like I do when suffering". Where we draw the line is completely arbitrary.

My second step still stands :)

The unique data-point here is that we are creating these "mini brains". I'm not invoking a knee-jerk "sCiEnTiSTs pLaY g0d OMG!" reaction, but I will invoke Goldblum's Objection: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should".

Like several others in this thread, I'm bemused that this passed bio-ethics. Drawing the line isn't entirely arbitrary, ethics panels do it every day. We already have the tools, but it seems that in this case we don't know whether to apply them, or which to apply.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#108

Post by moffkalast »

dillondoyle wrote: post #91
nier wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who like me are wondering where those neurons come from. An answer can be found in the Ars Technica article: “[...] the researchers tested two types of neurons: some dissected from mouse embryos, and others produced by inducing human stem cells to form neurons. ”

Finally a sliver of future I'm psyched about. Induce stem cells to form neurons? Next step induce new neurons to form new connections in existing brain!?

Yes but given that mouse neurons were used as a base, you now have a strong craving for cheese.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#109

Post by moffkalast »

austinjp wrote: post #49
seydor wrote: post #4

i would urge people to read the paper instead. The 'learning' is a bit iffy , and this was meant to test the brain theory of Friston rather than plug neurons into pong. Still, great job on the neurotechnology involved and a step in the direction where we should be going, controlling large numbers of neurons Ars Technica has a better article, although they dont describe the dense electode array correctly: https://arst…

Genuine question: why "should" we be going in this direction?

Because we can, and if we don't someone less ethical will.

Re: Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

#110

Post by austinjp »

wruza wrote: post #96
austinjp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well.... no. It's only necessary to know whether suffering exists (it does). After that it's sufficient to consider whether there's a greater than zero chance of creating it (there seems to be). That's enough to say "let's not do this until we have better data". If it turns out the second step is unknowable, that's enough to say "let's never do this". These are subjective decisions, and some may suggest that there ar…

I agree and am unconvinced too. But currently we also agree to create suffering at the industrial scale in mice. Pretty strange choice of principles.

Indeed. Although some of us try to opt out of that stuff too, as much as possible.

The ethical questions raised by anomalous situations like this indicate that our historical decisions may need revising.

Post reply on HN