Wow, nuerons in a petri dish learn to fly.

First we created an atomic bomb, only later a nuclear power plant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. But having a few neurons in a dish flying a plane is more similar to cold fusion than either a bomb or nuclear power plant. Before we can harness the power of neurons, we must first understand them on the simplest level.

And we didn't make the atomic bomb by throwing a bunch of uranium on a dish and applying current hoping that it would the job itself.

I understand what you're saying but a lot of harm could be done to the science if they try to jump ahead too far too fast. We must begin simply and work our way up. That's the purpose of the experiment. But, they're not starting simply enough. They're starting simply on the neuronal side, but the output is too complex.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well.. maybe they really needed the funds, so they had to start with a bang. Now there is attention and maybe also funding, so now they can step back a few steps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well if I'm not mistaken they did start simpler. something in that article mentioned how he got the idea from a similar, simpler experiment. i'd imagine one of the reasons they want this somewhat more complicated example is exactly to invoke complicated stimulous. then using what they know from prior experiments they may be able to discern more value from the more complicated doodad.

 

they do not even have a stone-age brain and you are allready talking about harnessing human power ?!
It is not controlled, it has a long way to go before it even becomes a stone-age man (similar intelligence) and even then it will not be a very effective "killer". At the moment i do not see this particular AI as any direct danger. Nor do i believe that i will in 20 years from now.

First make it controlled, then teach it. Then you might consider killing humans

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

people in the stone age didn't have a different brain than we do have now
at least so I was told by Discovery Channel
what makes us different is the cupped up knowledge that we pass to the next generations. take it away and we have a pre-stone age animal.
(for instance those few reported cases of children that have grown up in forests with no parents, etc)

 

actually all animals on this planet have the same brain more or less. All animals have the same "standard" values. For most animals these only feature basic reflexes, such as survival instincts. Humans on the other hand have come a long way, but back on the stone age we were not as "civil" as we are today. Not sure if you can call it civil (just look at the world today), but we at least believe that we are more civil.

A stone-age man is really stupid in today's eyes. What created "today's eyes" was evolution. Evolution took time, a very long time. The neurons as we are talking about in this thread are not a human brain. They are simply a few neurons forming a connection. This connection is the neural net. So, why do you believe that this particular neural net, that is way, way inferior to human brains will arise from the ashes in a matter of seconds and become the smartest creation on this planet and decide to kill every man? That is probably the most preposterous nonsense that i have heard.

AI is supposed to be a science. But your hopes and endless glorification of the small advances is turning it more into a religion. You might want to consider starting a cult.
In perhaps 50 years time you may have something real to worship.

 

what is 50 years? just another day in our history, a glimpse

 

I am not saying that we should not research in it. I am saying that there might be other alternatives that will take lesser time. And i am saying that some of you should not believe that it is going to kill us today, when it is not finished until tomorrow.

 

This is sooo funny. At best you could create a machine that was controlled by biological tissue. To what end? If the biological tissue was sentient i.e it had the power to 'control' then you have to give it a name and tell it who its master is - to not do so would be very dangerous indeed because you would not be taking responsibility for that which you have created! Nothing short of the most evil kind of slavery I could think of for that sentient being who was not even given the grace of a normal body.
If the biological tissue was not sentient then you have no control, just a mass of cells responding to external stimulae, in other words the external stimulae is its master which cannot be the object of the exercise.
I cannot believe that these ideas are considered to be at the pinnacle of human science - they should be scrapped immediately!

 

c20H25N3o: This is sooo funny. At best you could create a machine that was controlled by biological tissue. To what end?
*************
M*W: No, this is not funny. It's very serious bioscience. The machine science is trying to create through cells grown in a petri dish is the regeneration of damaged tissue. We can grow all kinds of stem cells in a petri dish, and the neurons that are being grown are for transplantation via a small catheter that can be roto-rootered through the vasculature toward the human brain to regenerate and rejuvenate brain tissue suffering from Parkinson's or Alzheimer's diseases, or even epileptic seizures.
*************
c20H25No: If the biological tissue was sentient i.e it had the power to 'control' then you have to give it a name and tell it who its master is - to not do so would be very dangerous indeed because you would not be taking responsibility for that which you have created!
*************
M*W: Tissue created to have 'power to control' others is yet science fiction. But that's where science starts -- at the fiction level until it's proven. As far as I've read, science still cannot create Frankenstein's monster. All science can do is manipulate damaged tissue to kick-in and regrow healthy tissue.
*************
c20H25No: Nothing short of the most evil kind of slavery I could think of for that sentient being who was not even given the grace of a normal body. If the biological tissue was not sentient then you have no control, just a mass of cells responding to external stimulae, in other words the external stimulae is its master which cannot be the object of the exercise.
*************
M*W: You're imagination is running away with you. This has nothing to do with 'slavery' except for the cellular level. I suppose you could look at it that the damaged neurons would become slaves to the healthy neurons, if you need a metaphoric answer.
*************
c20H25No: I cannot believe that these ideas are considered to be at the pinnacle of human science - they should be scrapped immediately!
*************
M*W: Lame is as lame does. The pinnacle of human bioscience is to heal the sick and cure disease. At worst, we could achieve greater longevity than we could deal with. At best, we could improve the physical damage to our bodies. No babies will be killed to achieve this advancement in science, and we are not that far out from 'reprogramming' damaged brain function with the neurons grown in petri dishes.

Why would anyone want to artifically create a whole new human being, when diapers would still have to be changed.

 

It is. Especially to the question of "free will." Should another thread be started in the Philosophy area for this subtopic of your post?

 

Dilbert,

Very few people have ever inspired me to want to reach through this screen and throttle them. You, Dilbert, have succeeded in this. Your statements are assinine at best.

Oh? All animals? Really? Where the fuck did you get that? You're saying that a rat's brain is the same as an elephant's brain except for size and a few minor differences? How about the fact that you can remove a rat's cortex and the rat will still function in a mostly ratlike manner? You're saying that a dog brain with HUGE olfactory bulbs is the same as a rabbit brain? You're saying that a reptile's brain is the same as a mammal's brain?

Brains are similar but saying that they are the same is a gross generalization.

Oh? The same standard 'values' eh? I'll agree that the very basic instincts are shared but do you think that a predator's system of 'values' is the same as a prey animal's?

Another gross generalization.

Oh? A long way, huh? You're saying that we're more evolved than other animals?

The point has already been made that the brain from a stone age man is the same as a modern human. Evolution led to the brain. Since that time evolution hasn't had much of a chance to do anything. One reason for this is that the stone age was yesterday evolutionarily speaking.

Was your point about "all animals having the same brain more or less" supposed to say something about the differences between stone age man and modern man? If so, then it's an even more idiotic comment. Homo sapiens in the stone age had the exact same brain as we modern humans have. Take a stone age baby and raise it in the modern era and you wouldn't know the difference.

Anyway, all this has nothing to do with a pile of neurons in a petri dish, does it?

No shit??!! Wow. I bet you you just amazed everyone here. We know it's a fucking neural net. And we know it's not a human brain. It'd be pretty tough for a few rat neurons to even try to make a human brain. I almost expected you to break out some terminater lingo. "It's a neural net processor. A learning computer." **Best Schwarzenegger imitation.**

Now, this... THIS... is what really fucking irked me. Above and beyond all the other nonsense. This statement shows the depth of your idiocy.

You know what's even more preposterous than this nonsense "that you've heard"? You're the only one to bring up "killer" cyborgs. How fucking preposterous that you bring up a concept as if others here are saying it and have the fucking gall to pretend that you're outraged by 'hearing it."

And another idiotic statement from left field. Who's starting a fucking cult? I'll join it if we can lay you out on the altar and cut your fucking heart out.

 

Dilbert:

Predator and prey come equipped with hundreds of variables distinguising one from the other .

Intellect has appeared and transcended this, with the human brain being one of the most distinguishable objects on the planet- if you're going to say that cerebral tissue in vertebrates resemble each other in texture and matter than fine.
But to suggest that all brains- from the mole's to Mozart's are more or less same, you sir, are an idiot.

This is true.
But the article does not claim these neurons can build empires or compose "Beau Soir"

Uh-oh.
You've just called honest speculation religion because .....you have nothing else to say.

 

Why wouldnt it be ethical? How would you like the sole purpose of your consious existence to be to get digital input from a computer to match up in a certain way so that a plane which you have no sensual experience of doesnt crash?

Something about this doesn't seem right. Our thinking process is partially emotionally motivated (we are seeking respect and recognition). Why would brain cells have any motivation to control an airplane? Maybe they are taking advantage of some kind of programmed instinct?

 

I was just thinking maybe they send it a little shock or something if it goes off course. I bet that's how they make it control the plane. Hmmm.

 

It would have to be something of the sort. Some type of negative feedback. Electric shock. Maybe even some type of chemical message but that would be rather complicated.

When neurons are zapped with electricity it doesn't act as a punishment, it effectively shuts them down temporarily. I wonder if, in a simple network such as this one, if shutting a neuron down temporarily won't cause a rewiring to occur that is more beneficial to the setup? But to do that, they'd have to target specific neurons. If they just had an electrode in a certain part of the dish then that neuron or group of neurons would be the ones to take the punishment for the whole group and I don't see how this would really provide proper feedback.

Hmm.
You know. Hate to say this, but Truthseeker posted more links in his thread. Maybe some of them go into more detail on this?

One thing for sure, there is no programmed instinct other than what you might call instinctive neuronal behavior to form networks. There are no emotions as there are no structures complex enough to regulate emotions.

Motivation would be a key factor to this experiment. THere must be a way to tell the neurons which actions are 'right' and which are 'wrong'.


*edit*
From one of TruthSeeker's links:

So. They have 60 nodes, basically, that they are able to receive information from and to send stimulation to.

They'd be better off with a chemical interface.

 

Hmm.. well, I'd imagine a chemical interface is goddamned tricky to pull off. I'm not sure if the rat synapse interface is as complex as a humans. Is it? I know they use rats because they're good models of parts of humans, but I'm not sure which parts. Regardless, there's a lot of chemical goodness apparently going un-noticed? Can they properly monitor the network's communications without monitoring the chemical happenings? Is there electrical evidence of all the chemical interactions? I think you're right they'd be better off with a chemical interface, but how to do it? Hmm. That's a head scratcher right there.

 

I guess they're just growing them randomly and letting themselves sot each other out among a set array of electrodes? just an idea, ya know, why do the wiring when you let the little rat cells do it for you?