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

A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 208 posts

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#181

Post by yawpitch »

ktm5j wrote: post #145
marliechiller wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lice have no choice in their lot in the universe. Do you think if they had intelligence the ability to choose their lot that they would choose their current one again? I doubt it personally. You can detest their mode of existence whilst still having empathy for them I think

Why would you have empathy for something that is literally incapable of things like empathy. Or any kind of emotion or thought. This is ridiculous guys, you might as well have empathy for a rock.

It’s pretty easy to empathize with a rock, actually… they pretty much always feel stoned.

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#182

Post by kypro »

ddlsmurf wrote: post #37
kypro wrote: post #22

Oh nice, might use this to create some art for my home. https://www.instagram.com/p/DMfi-9Vsl-u/ > Infinite Pain is a computer running a deterministic neural simulation of a microscopic nematode worm’s brain (c. elegans), subjected to regular pain stimuli.

are you ok ?

Not really. I'm deeply disturbed by this kind of thing and our flippant approach to this technology.

I'm trying to prompt an emotion reaction and reflection on that.

If I'm serious, then how does it make you feel? Should I or anyone be creating art experiments like this?

Or what if I just want to play around with this technology, should anyone be allowed to run neural simulations of any creature to satisfy my own curiosity?

Even if you didn't like what I was doing and wanted to stop me, could you? Could anyone?

It's worth thinking about. AI and progress in neuroscience and computational power should allow me to create a whole exhibit in my home of human neural simulations. Maybe god doesn't exist, or maybe he didn't create hell. But one day, perhaps soon, we humans will.

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#184

Post by idiotsecant »

fluoridation wrote: post #161
idiotsecant wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could simulate a human perfectly how would it possibly not be'subject to the same rules of ethics' as humans? What you've created is a human. If a system takes the same inputs and creates the same output it's the same system on different substrate. You don't say a human stops being a human if you put them on a ventilator, do you? Part of that system is now in an external substrate. How much of the biological h…

>What you've created is a human. That's incorrect, for reasons I've already stated. Humans and simulated humans are not interchangeable. >If a system takes the same inputs and creates the same output it's the same system on different substrate. You can't feed a simulated human real food, and you can't feed a real human simulated food. You can talk to a human by vibrating real atoms at them, but you need to make simul…

So if i encode that virtual human into a biological brain and put it in a human body what is it? A real human, or no?

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#185

Post by internetter »

ktm5j wrote: post #145
marliechiller wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lice have no choice in their lot in the universe. Do you think if they had intelligence the ability to choose their lot that they would choose their current one again? I doubt it personally. You can detest their mode of existence whilst still having empathy for them I think

Why would you have empathy for something that is literally incapable of things like empathy. Or any kind of emotion or thought. This is ridiculous guys, you might as well have empathy for a rock.

where do you draw the line? (I sound like PETA). But it's a valid question. for instance, I have empathy for dolphins, and for elephants. I have empathy for cows, despite eating them. They are more smart than we give them credit for. I have empathy for a bee when I must kill it, and certainly for the broader colony and species. I don't think I have empathy for lice or ticks or mosquitoes, but where on earth is that line, and what does it represent?

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#186

Post by ddlsmurf »

kypro wrote: post #182
ddlsmurf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you ok ?

Not really. I'm deeply disturbed by this kind of thing and our flippant approach to this technology. I'm trying to prompt an emotion reaction and reflection on that. If I'm serious, then how does it make you feel? Should I or anyone be creating art experiments like this? Or what if I just want to play around with this technology, should anyone be allowed to run neural simulations of any creature to satisfy my own cur…

Those are good points. And for a serious answer, indeed we should probably be exploring the ethics of it now. It's just humanity never really did that before unleashing a new tech, so I'm not optimistic, but I wish you success on provoking reflexion. What you're doing now isn't bothering me really but only for a reason of scale, it's one of those balancing dilemnas like abortion, or "is it a pet or food". Ian M Banks' Surface Detail has a harrowing vision of the prolongation of what you're doing (I'm a huge fan). At the moment I'm more disturbed about stuff like those people who played doom on cells.

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#187

Post by dekhn »

inigyou wrote: post #130
jeffybefffy519 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isnt there also a theory and some evidence that the connectome is not enough to model a brain. Based on the fact that butterlies connectome dissolves during metamorphosis to butterfly but it still remembers things from before that stage of life.

Butterflies dissolving is an urban legend. They don't dissolve. Caterpillars have wing stubs inside them. Someone probably cut open a chrysalis and saw goop come out, so they assumed it was just a bag of goop. But goop would also come out of a cut open caterpillar, or a cut open butterfly, or a cut open human.

No, this is incorrect. During metamorphosis, entire parts of the body do dissolve (enzymes break them up).

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#188

Post by dullcrisp »

idiotsecant wrote: post #184
fluoridation wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What you've created is a human. That's incorrect, for reasons I've already stated. Humans and simulated humans are not interchangeable. >If a system takes the same inputs and creates the same output it's the same system on different substrate. You can't feed a simulated human real food, and you can't feed a real human simulated food. You can talk to a human by vibrating real atoms at them, but you need to make simul…

So if i encode that virtual human into a biological brain and put it in a human body what is it? A real human, or no?

Then it would be a real human. Like if you take a picture of a carrot and put it through a Star Trek replicator you’ll have a real carrot presumably. Unless you say Star Trek replicators aren’t real things and so you can’t make any claims about them. But even with the replicator, the picture of the carrot won’t be the carrot afaik.

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#189

Post by jamilton »

RIMR wrote: post #163
jamilton wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really does not "explore" the concept, it just features it as a plot element.

It's the central plot point of the entire series. If that's not "exploring the concept", you're going to have to explain why.

Sure, more spoilers ahead.

For every episode except the last 1-2 the characters are not textually aware that they're simulated humans made from a brain scan, and the conflict and plot are largely interpersonal conflict and being forced into adventures by the mad AI that runs the simulation. The characters wish that they could leave and/or change the simulation, and eventually accept their situation, and part of the conclusion is the idea that it's worth existing in their limited simulation and trying to make the best of it even though they'll never leave.

You could say it's exploring what it would be like to be trapped in a simulation with a mad AI, but I wouldn't say it explores the concept of ethics of simulating humans in general. Most of the things the humans don't like are arbitrary limitations of this simulation in particular (can't talk to the outside world, can't choose your form, can't have sex, can't have any impact on the world, forced into zany situations by an AI that doesn't really understand humans or listen to them), not anything about simulations in general. The finale touches on the idea of the simulated humans wondering about their original versions and what they're like and what they're up to, but that's about it.

Basically, I don't feel by watching the show I encountered any non-trivial ideas about human simulations just because it's about a simulation.

Re: A 3D fruit fly on macOS desktop powered by the real FlyWire connectome

#190

Post by kypro »

ddlsmurf wrote: post #186
kypro wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I'm deeply disturbed by this kind of thing and our flippant approach to this technology. I'm trying to prompt an emotion reaction and reflection on that. If I'm serious, then how does it make you feel? Should I or anyone be creating art experiments like this? Or what if I just want to play around with this technology, should anyone be allowed to run neural simulations of any creature to satisfy my own cur…

Those are good points. And for a serious answer, indeed we should probably be exploring the ethics of it now. It's just humanity never really did that before unleashing a new tech, so I'm not optimistic, but I wish you success on provoking reflexion. What you're doing now isn't bothering me really but only for a reason of scale, it's one of those balancing dilemnas like abortion, or "is it a pet or food". Ian M Banks…

> Ian M Banks' Surface Detail has a harrowing vision of the prolongation of what you're doing (I'm a huge fan).

I'm aware of the culture series, but never read any of it (I'm not a big fiction reader). That book sounds super interesting though so thank you for the recommendation – I may try to give it a go.

Artificial hells are something I'm very afraid of, and specifically the scenario of being able to prevent someone's death and torture them in ways our physical environment or physical bodies would not permit.

I've argued before if technology ever permits this then people should strongly consider whether continuing to live is worth the risk of one day being subjected to such a fate. Concerningly it seems to me the preferable thing to do once this technology exists is to kill yourself and everyone you care about in a way that maximises the probability that you, and they, will never be revived either physically or digitally.

RSI and ASI could make this a reality much quicker than we anticipate. Versions of the near-future in which this technology is frequently used against humans is an AI doom scenario which imo is very under priced. People talk a lot about existential risk, but AI simply killing us is one of the better outcomes. RSI and ASI in theory should grant us (or the AIs) a full tech-tree unlock, and there's many technologies out there which are worse than those which might merely be able to kill us all.

I worry when I talk about stuff like this people think I'm a crazy person. Hopefully you don't think that.

Post reply on HN