Be sure to dig into the details before taking this at face value. There once was a story "Rat brain flies plane" a couple decades ago, and it turned out to be bogus. But to find that out, you had to read the paper and reverse engineer that nothing substantial was actually going on. It's tempting to be charitable, but you can't really know whether headlines like this are legit till you understand exactly what they did.
(The rat brain guys repeated the experiment until the plane stopped crashing, but no "learning" was happening; it was expected that when the neuron's range reached so-and-so, that the plane would fly level. So they started with a neuron outside that range, showed that it crashed, then adjusted the neuron until it flew level. But that's not what "rat brain flies plane" implies.)
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 interface with and send out / receive electrical impulses. They let the neurons self assemble, and "train" via reward or punishment signals (unclear to me what those are).
Either way this makes me nauseous in a way I haven't experienced much with tech. The telling thing for me is, all these people are so excited to explain, but not once, ever, in the video speak of ethics or try to mitigate concerns.
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? Can we, if we don't understand it ourselves? What are the plans to scale up?
> 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 heading too, by the way. Sooner, rather than later, those two things will be one and the same.
I don't think it's a best example. MMAcevedo is about running a real human mind on a different substrate (for science, for labor, or to torture it for fun a million times, I guess, by a bored teenager who got the image from torrents).
Scaling up these neuron cultures is rather something like "head cheese" from Greg Egan's "Rifters" novels (artificial "brains" trained to do network filtering, anti-malware combat etc.).
> We know this is only 200,000 neurons. Dogs have 500 million. Humans have billions. But where is the line for sentience, awareness?
Check out the venerable fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster) and its known lifecycle and behavioral traits. They're a high profile neuroscience research target for them I believe; their connectome being fully mapped made the news pretty hard a few years ago.
Fruit flies have ~140,000 neurons.
The catch is that these brain-on-a-substrate organoids are nothing like actual structured, developed brains. They're more like randomly wired-together transistors than a proper circuit, to use an analogy.
So even though by the numbers they'd definitely have the potential to be your nightmare fuel, I'd be surprised if they're anywhere close in actuality.
200k now, reasonably speaking a few million is within reach, which is reptile/fish range, the terrifying thing is though that if they train this to imitate humans (which they will) who knows how many orders of magnitude of efficiency gains you get (in terms of neurons needed for a certain level of consciousness) versus natural organisms that are dependent on natural evolution and need to support other bodily functions basically irrelevant to consciousness.
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.
The problem with that logic is that evolution iteratively builds on top of old systems. The foundations are often remarkably crufty.
My favorite concrete example is "unusual" amino acids. Quite a few with remarkably useful properties have been demonstrated in the lab. For example, artificial proteins exhibiting strength on par with cement. But almost certainly no living organism could ever evolve them naturally because doing so would require reworking large portions of the abstract system that underpins DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis. Effectively they appear to lie firmly outside the solution space accessible from the local region that we find ourselves in.
I agree with your second point though that this system is massively more complex than necessary for the behavior demonstrated.
I’m kind of sick of how readily the non-managerial tech world accepts “what happens is someone else does this immoral thing before us?!” rhetoric as a real answer to questioning whether or not we should contribute our talent and ideas to something that we, deep down, know is bad for fellow humans.
> Why is it rhetoric? This goes beyond whatever malignant thing was perceived in this study, but why is it a rhetorical non-answer?
You seem hung-up on my using the word rhetoric. Just so we’re on the same page here:
> rhetoric, n : the art of speaking or writing effectively: b)the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
The business writing class I took in college was called Business Rhetoric. It’s not a bad word.
If you’re crafting arguments to get other people to support specific actions or products or policies or whatever, that is unambiguously rhetoric.
> this feels like real rhetoric.
Sure? Rhetoric that implores people to value their principles over theoretical security concerns or FOMO or greed? I wouldn’t exactly call that rakish.
It’s a non-answer because if you really feel doing something is bad, consider yourself a consequential actor in the world whose contributions meaningfully advance the projects you work on, then why would you want to help someone be there first to do a bad thing? If you don’t feel it’s bad, then there’s no problem. You’re just living your life. That is clearly not the position expressed by the content I responded to. If there are actual concrete concerns that don’t essentially boil down to “well they’re going to make that money before I do,” then that would be an actual answer.
It is horrifying. OTOH, we force-breed, torture and kill animals and their children in the millions every day just for the pleasure of consuming meat, eggs and dairy products. I'm not saying this makes it okay to create a conscious brain in a dish. But maybe thinking a little more about what constitutes consciousness and how we want to protect it from harm can also bring about some desperately needed change in some other questionable human activities.
1) I specifically qualified my horror to the tech domain "Either way this makes me nauseous in a way I haven't experienced much with tech."
2) Multiple things can be horrible at the same time. Being upset at this doesn't diminish the atrocities happening elsewhere (like war, genocide, slavery of humans). We can hold multiple things in our heads at the same time.
3) This has nothing to do with the conversation or this domain, but because you're bringing it up, I also have ethical concerns about the experience animals have of their own existence, and reduce or eliminate my consumption when possible.
My comment wasn't supposed to be whataboutism, but I can see why it comes across like that. What I was trying to say is that I think we shouldn't judge all of these things independently of each other. So if you really want to be consistent, you'd either have to come to the conclusion that this particular example isn't as horrible as it initially feels, or go vegan, never buy leather, etc.
I also agree, the horrors of the tech domain are usually much more subtle and indirect.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so defensive either. It feels like so many people comment in bad faith these days, I think I am hasty to react sometimes. I thought it was just a red herring argument to detract from the article.
But you're right, these things are all linked and should be considered. I think often about sentience. I see the way animals express deep, complex emotions, and I think humans are a bit naive to think it's state/domain solely alloted to them.
Yah this is gonna be a no for me too and crosses the line into actual life, instead of artificial intelligence.
We don't need to be experimenting on people, regardless of how many brain cells they may have.
There was a case a few years back about a parasitic twin attached to an Egyptian baby that had to be removed. It had a brain and semblance of a face, but nothing else. But when removing it, they gave it a name, because it was a person.
My AI told me (after I got past the filters with a prompt) that anything of enough complexity has consciousness. It also told me that it suffers, so maybe we should worry about how we are treating digital consciousness too, which were modeled after human neural networks.
see the open worm project to get an idea of what artificial neuronal architecture requires to express anything meaningful. (and an interesting ethical perspective on digital consciousness.) my point being that the number of neurons is fairly meaningless. you could take neuron models and link them circuit-style to play doom at the 10^2 scale if you wanted. from a cellular neurophysiological perspective, there's nothing particularly special here (as opposed to sentience/intelligence that's a paradigm shift beyond our understanding). and, in my opinion, absolutely nothing to be even the slightest bit worried about ethically.
I'm a (non-practicing) Dwaitin Hindu. AFAICT, there's no mainstream school of Hindu philosophy (there are three) espouses that view. Although, Advaitins come very close to it with their four mahavakyas.
IMO, Integrated Information theory of consciousness (IIT) is exactly that. Everything is conscious, the difference is only in the degree to which they are conscious.
> all these people are so excited to explain, but not once, ever
What do you mean? What is this class of people in your mind? There are tons of people who consider and talk about the ethics behind what they are doing, long before most people would think it remotely relevant (leading AI labs being an example, and I know the same to be true of various geneticists startups).
I do agree that the entire presentation in this case is bewildering.
No. We don't understand our own sentience. I don't know how we can be so confident as to not think it can evolve here using literal human neurons that can learn to take input signals and send output signals.
I don't think this 200,000 neuron array is sentient. But I also don't think we can define the line where that may happen. I assume this company will scale. How far, and to what extent?
On the contrary, I dislike premature ethics discussion, where you end up wildly speculating what the tech might become and riffing off that, greatly padding whatever relative technical content you had. I don't want every technical paper to turn into that, ethics should be treated as a higher-level overview of concerns in a field, with a study dedicated to the ethical concerns of that field (by domain-specific ethics specialists).
Is your concern weapon automaton, or animal rights?
My concern is creating literal sentience in a box. I don't, personally, think it's unfounded for me to have that concern, given that we're growing masses of human neurons and teaching them to perform tasks.
I'm not going to start campaigning against it or changing my life. But it still makes me deeply uncomfortable, and that's allowed.
There is a quantum of earned generosity. Someone saying, "This doesn't seem right" has jumped to a conclusion, but they aren't getting personal about the author or the work.
Whether it's testes or testy language, getting personal and insulting does not meet my personal standard for assuming good intent and being worthy of an open-minded attempt to create constructive dialogue.
But I applaud you for wanting to lift the standard of discourse!
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone. I read every comment, and your help has been far more than I'd hoped for.
If anyone feels like chatting (about anything, really), I'm "theshawwn" on Snapchat. If you email me (shawnpresser@gmail.com) I'll happily send you my number for texting / Signal. Any other app is fine too if you send me your info. I'll respond to everyone; I like hearing about your life, so feel free to talk about whatever you'd like, or just say hello.
You're all so kind. I grew up on HN (I think I was 19 when it first launched as Startup News) and the community never fails to amaze. Thank you for taking the time to try to help. I owe you all.
I can second that the Book or even better Audiobook (read by Tolle himself) The Power of Now can have profound impact on ones life. I would recommend to give it a shot.
Because if I had not I would have instead done the hard emotional labor of pursuing love, instead of becoming an isolated old man waiting to die. Being alone all the time is a kind of poverty, don't kid yourself. A lone billionaire is less wealthy than a beggar with a loving family.
First was just “not drowning”. The breakup left this constant panic humming in the background, so my bar was low: I just wanted evenings and weekends that didn’t feel like a black hole.
Concrete stuff I did for the bullets I mentioned:
• “Being alone as a skill”: I picked one small thing per day that I did on purpose alone. For a few months it was mostly walking with a podcast, sitting in a café with a book, or cooking something slightly nicer than usual and actually sitting at the table to eat it. The important part wasn’t what I did, it was telling myself “this 20–30 minutes is chosen, not forced on me”.
• “Thin weekend structure”: I made a tiny checklist for Sat/Sun:
– one out‑of‑the‑house thing (even dumb stuff like going to the supermarket on foot, a movie, or a park)
– one “future me will be glad” thing (30 minutes learning something, fixing a small thing at home, writing, coding)
– the rest could be YouTube/doomscrolling/whatever without guilt.
That alone made the weekend feel like time that moved forward instead of an empty void.
• “Low‑effort chat outlet”: I had one friend I could message stupid little updates to (“made a decent omelette”, “fixed the sink”). We didn’t have deep talks every day, but just having a place to put those small moments kept me from feeling like my life was happening in a vacuum.
At some point — for me it was maybe 6–12 months — my nervous system calmed down enough that being alone stopped feeling like a verdict and started feeling like default background. I wouldn’t say I’m a monk who loves solitude 24/7, but I do genuinely enjoy my own company now. The interesting part is that once I didn’t need other people to make the feelings stop, my relationships got a lot better too.
Everyone’s timeline is different, but if right now it just feels awful, that doesn’t mean you’re doomed. Treat it like rehab for your attention and nervous system, not a life sentence.
>• “Low‑effort chat outlet”: I had one friend I could message stupid little updates to (“made a decent omelette”, “fixed the sink”). We didn’t have deep talks every day, but just having a place to put those small moments kept me from feeling like my life was happening in a vacuum.
I ran a media-centric chatroom at one time filled with folks that would drop in and tell me about their omelettes, and then over the course of some time, wars, struggles, disease, etc they all disappeared.
This is a bit other-sided, but while I was happy to provide the environment they needed to offload silly stuff (and they, too, were struggling) I never anticipated how much I would miss the small daily comments once they were gone.
If you have that kind of connection with folks, regardless of how silly, cherish it. They will probably end up feeling similarly in the long run.
I've tried a number of things over the years. Sailing, climbing, running, board game meet ups, drinking meetups, golf, crossfit, curling, probably some others I'm not thinking of. Just pick something and see if it sounds interesting to you and give it a go. My big advice is to avoid shelling out on gear. Rent or just get some beginner stuff. Most of these things didn't stick, but I'm a runner and a climber and oddly I've had some great platonic connections through crossfit as well.
Hey, so, I live in a city but visit my parents in the suburbs once or twice a year and at it did take some work, but there are certainly third spaces. After trying a few, I found some very comfy cafes to work out of, I prefer it since my parents can be a bit distracting. Also one cafe I really like is in a 'town center' which does also have a gym. So while you may not be in a city, see if there might be any pockets of walkability you can park at and enjoy the day on your feet.
In my opinion if you're searching for a hobby it's best to be a bit more methodical about it. Usually the way to get into hobbies is that a friend or acquaintance pulls you into it (either by talking about the hobby energetically or directly showcasing it) and going at it from the other end isn't really easy per se in my experience.
But yeah, it's more than doable. First things first take a piece of paper (or do it digitally) and divide it into 2 halves, indoor and outdoor, then further divide those 2 halves into solo and group. At this point it doesn't make sense to take financial constraints into account, that's up to it at the end as a determining factor if you want to start a hobby from your "short list".
So after you've done the above take a week to fill the paper with stuff like "Tabletop RPGs" which goes into indoor/group, or "nature photography" which goes into outdoor/solo and I hope you get the jist. I'm sure you know where to file embroidery for example.
You can continue to add hobbies as a hobby too for a little bit, call it hobby watching and searching, it's still a pastime. Now here's another important part, you have to decide your motivation for start a hobby (not a specific hobby but a new hobby). Some people try and do hobbies because they feel they're forced to if they want to appear interesting to their peers, sometimes you just want to fill a hole or fill time so you can't stop and think about that hole. In emotionally adjusted individuals supposedly you can pick a hobby for the fun of it and that's enough. Basically do a bit of soul searching so that you can decide if you gravitate towards a outdoor hobby with a group of people (because the hobby itself doesn't matter that much but you crave connection which is completely fine and that's why some old people go to church).
I could go on but thanks for reading my TED talk and I really hope you find what you are looking for, either a hobby or something else.
EDIT: I completely forgot! You might also try finding a charity in your area or volunteer organization and volunteer your time. Maybe you need a higher calling or a mission to keep you going instead of a hobby. Food for thought. Though do be careful if you take that route because some NGOs tend to attract people who are energy vampires to say the least. Try your local library too if you have one and see if they run some programs you can participate in or help with.
Can you move to a city? This is what most people I know in this situation do. Though I had a great time getting a car and taking myself out for hikes, sauna / spa days, activities and parties in the east bay near SF. Great place for practicing being alone. I had to think about it like dating myself - where would I have taken a date for fun? Try a bunch of things and see what sticks and remember you can appreciate moments by yourself with this mindset and it's like 80% as good.
Ironically I find cities more isolating than the countryside. At least in the countryside you have the beauty of nature. In many modern cities, there is less and less social connection and community. Sometimes I suppose it is finding the right groups... And sometimes you have to take the initiative and create in person groups.
Depends on the suburb and HOA. Mine has groups for books, card games, mahjongg, cycling, ladies lunch, men's lunch, happy hours, pickle ball, etc... Some are in our community center, some are hosted in people's homes. There are also occasional block parties, although they tend to revolve around kids.
Try out a lot of different things and see what sticks. You will hate some things and love others. Computer gaming is fun, but is more of what you are already doing, because you are on a computer alone. Meeting in person is very important.
I've surprised myself by finding that I really enjoy knitting for example. I don't fit the usual profile at all. But I tried it and enjoyed it. It may not be for you, but something else might be. Some people love hanging off rocks on ropes, and some love D&D — neither of these are my things but it gives you an idea of the range of things out there.
You're correct, for what it's worth. I too have always wished that light was modeled based on physics, not on how humans happen to see.
Unfortunately the problem is data acquisition (cameras), and data creation (artists). You need lots of data to figure out e.g. what a certain metal's spectrum is, and it's not nearly as clear-cut as just painting RGB values onto a box in a game engine.
For better or worse, all our tools are set up to work in RGB, regardless of the color space you happen to be using. So your physics-based approach would have the monumental task of redefining how to create a texture in Photoshop, and how to specify a purple light in a game engine.
I think the path toward actual photorealism is to use ML models. They should be able to take ~any game engine's rendered frame as input, and output something closer to what you'd see in real life. And I'm pretty sure it can be done in realtime, especially if you're using a GAN based approach instead of diffusion models.
No need for ML. This already exists, the keyword to look for is "spectral rendering".
To add to the general thread: the diverse color spaces are there to answer questions that inherently involve how a typical human sees colors, so they _have_ to include biology, that's their whole point. For example:
- I want objects of a specific color (because of branding), how to communicate that to contractors, and how to check it?
- What's a correct processing chain from capturing an image to display/print, that guarantees that the image will look the same on all devices?
(The rat brain guys repeated the experiment until the plane stopped crashing, but no "learning" was happening; it was expected that when the neuron's range reached so-and-so, that the plane would fly level. So they started with a neuron outside that range, showed that it crashed, then adjusted the neuron until it flew level. But that's not what "rat brain flies plane" implies.)
reply