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

Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#241

Post by bondarchuk »

altmanaltman wrote: post #166
sd9 wrote: post #102

If this can be taken at face value... it's creepy. I get that they're doing it for the meme. But perhaps something getting close to human intelligence, made out of human cells, shouldn't be forced to play a violent video game without any alternative options? Does 'the meme' justify that? I dunno. Nothing against violent games myself. Just feels like it's starting to get quite questionable, ethically speaking.

I mean, it's nowhere close to human intelligence, and it's still not a sentient being, so it cannot be "forced" to do anything, even if we take it at face value. As for being creepy, the things humans do to other actual sentient beings are exponentially more horrifying and creepy than making them play computer games. If the monkeys that Volkswagen tortured with their exhaust gases were made to play Doom, that would b…

>it's still not a sentient being

How do you know?

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#242

Post by bondarchuk »

nextaccountic wrote: post #60
birdsongs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked into it. They're not feeding the framebuffer to the neurons, but have a "signal" when an enemy is on screen to some of the tissue's inputs, and how to locate it in the x/y axis, and have outputs for the character to turn right or left or fire. It's "see this input signal, send these output signals", which seems consistent with the title. It seems they grow the neural tissue on a chip the neurons can interfac…

> We know this is only 200,000 neurons. Dogs have 500 million. Humans have billions. But where is the line for sentience, awareness? Have we defined it? If this concern is genuine, I think the first step is to embrace veganism. Because while we don't know the exact offset, it's pretty obvious a dog or a pig reaches it > What are the plans to scale up? I don't know, slavery on an unimaginable scale? That's where AI is…

Surely you can imagine that there are people who draw their ethical line for permissible suffering with animal farming on the "permissible" side and "slavery on an unimaginable scale" on the "not permissible" side? Imagine you or someone you love duplicated 5 million times and living through 1000 subjective years of pure existential horror (while doing menial industrial cognitive tasks). Some would say this is worse than eating meat.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#243

Post by chatmasta »

red_hare wrote: post #120
sd9 wrote: post #102

If this can be taken at face value... it's creepy. I get that they're doing it for the meme. But perhaps something getting close to human intelligence, made out of human cells, shouldn't be forced to play a violent video game without any alternative options? Does 'the meme' justify that? I dunno. Nothing against violent games myself. Just feels like it's starting to get quite questionable, ethically speaking.

The truth is, God really gave 11 commandments. It's just "Thou shalt not grow a brain in a test tube and force it to play a 1993 shooter" didn't make any sense to Moses and therefore didn't make the editors cut.

I dunno, I feel like we’re well within the territory of the first commandment when it comes to growing brains in a vat.

“I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall not have strange gods before Me.”

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#244

Post by ragle »

This reminds me of a nightmare I had in college one semester when I was taking 18 credit hours and consulting part time.

I'd been up for days and had been cramming for a computer architecture exam when I basically passed out.

I had this very visceral nightmare where I was a compiler and the C code was coming faster than I could translate to ASM. I kept trying to escape but it was like I was locked into the work in this never-ending grinding cycle I couldn't escape from. The dream went on for what felt like hours until I woke up drenched in sweat.

Hopefully these neurons aren't satisfying whatever sufficiency threshold delimits consciousness. Approaching some weird ethical territory in any case for sure.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#245

Post by Retric »

idiotsecant wrote: post #220
Retric wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unlikely that we would be more efficient at achieve consensus than evolution which can hand craft neural structures via feedback loops across millions of generations. Especially when this demo needs 200k neurons when organizations with vastly fewer neurons have more complex behaviors.

We already know we can be more efficient than evolution at many tasks. Pelicans after all never developed jet turbines. We may not be able to access a simulation space as vast as evolution does but for small solution spaces we do quite well.

Efficiency by what metrics?

When aircraft can carry onboard oil refineries and drilling rigs you can more reasonably compare them to birds. Without that you need to consider ATP vs jet fuel or crude oil vs a dead fish? Skeletal muscle can be 40+% efficient depending on what exactly you’re measuring.

Going head to head vs evolution in a similar design space with similar tools and goals, arranging neurons for useful thinking, is vary different than increasing top speed while sacrificing just about everything else.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#246

Post by bondarchuk »

Retric wrote: post #245
idiotsecant wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already know we can be more efficient than evolution at many tasks. Pelicans after all never developed jet turbines. We may not be able to access a simulation space as vast as evolution does but for small solution spaces we do quite well.

Efficiency by what metrics? When aircraft can carry onboard oil refineries and drilling rigs you can more reasonably compare them to birds. Without that you need to consider ATP vs jet fuel or crude oil vs a dead fish? Skeletal muscle can be 40+% efficient depending on what exactly you’re measuring. Going head to head vs evolution in a similar design space with similar tools and goals, arranging neurons for useful th…

>When aircraft can carry onboard oil refineries and drilling rigs you can more reasonably compare them to birds.

This is a fair point in general, but the whole point in this context is not that human design is more efficient at duplicating an entire organism, but that it can be more efficient at narrowly defined tasks. Evolution has never had the goal 'evolve human consciousness as quickly and efficiently as possible', it just had the goal (and even calling it that is stretching things of course, but let's say an emergent goal) of reproducing organisms.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#247

Post by Chris2048 »

c22 wrote: post #231
Chris2048 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not a bad word. When used in the negative sense it is, per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rhetoric "disapproving -> clever language that sounds good but is not sincere or has no real meaning" Are you implying you mean something other than this sense of the word?

"Implying" seems kind of weak, the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using.

Yes, after the fact; that is after my response they provided a definition.

> the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using

No, technically they didn't. They provided a definition, they didn't say it was the one they are using here. If it's not pedantic tangent, it seem correct to assume that is the definition they are using, but that's what "Implying" means, so I trying to explicitly get a clarification on that.

"Why?" you might ask? Not every discussion is in good faith. The more that is assumed, the more leeway you allow for people to weasel out of countered arguments.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#248

Post by c22 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #247
c22 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Implying" seems kind of weak, the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using.

Yes, after the fact; that is after my response they provided a definition. > the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using No, technically they didn't. They provided a definition, they didn't say it was the one they are using here. If it's not pedantic tangent, it seem correct to assume that is the definition they are using, but that's what "Implying" means, so I trying to explicitly get a clar…

Yes. They provided their definition in response to your (mis?)reading of their original words. They are not the party bringing bad faith to this conversation.

Re: Living human brain cells play DOOM on a CL1 [video]

#250

Post by Retric »

bondarchuk wrote: post #246
Retric wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency by what metrics? When aircraft can carry onboard oil refineries and drilling rigs you can more reasonably compare them to birds. Without that you need to consider ATP vs jet fuel or crude oil vs a dead fish? Skeletal muscle can be 40+% efficient depending on what exactly you’re measuring. Going head to head vs evolution in a similar design space with similar tools and goals, arranging neurons for useful th…

> When aircraft can carry onboard oil refineries and drilling rigs you can more reasonably compare them to birds. This is a fair point in general, but the whole point in this context is not that human design is more efficient at duplicating an entire organism, but that it can be more efficient at narrowly defined tasks. Evolution has never had the goal 'evolve human consciousness as quickly and efficiently as possibl…

> can be more efficient at narrowly defined tasks

My point was in narrowly defined task of turning chemical energy to motion, a Jet engine is less efficient than muscle fibers if you use ATP as the point of comparison. Biology got really efficient at that very narrowly defined task.

> Evolution has never had the goal 'evolve human consciousness as quickly and efficiently as possible'

Evolving as efficiently as possible isn’t the goal. But turn an egg into human consciousness as efficiently as possible is definitely a goal, of course it gets to leverage everything else the brain needs to be doing rather than starting from scratch here.

Post reply on HN