livescience In a 1st, scientists combine AI with a 'minibrain' to make hybrid computer

[bonami2]

Quote

To boost the computing power of artificial intelligence (AI), researchers have combined run-of-the-mill machine learning with a sophisticated 3D model of the human brain made of different types of brain tissue grown in the lab.

These miniature models of the brain, known as cerebral organoids or "minibrains," have existed in various forms since 2013. But they've never been harnessed as a way to augment AI.

The new research uses more traditional computing hardware to input electrical data into the organoid and then decipher the organoid's activity to produce an output — so the organoid serves only as the "middle layer" of the computing process.

In a 1st, scientists combine AI with a 'minibrain' to make hybrid computer | Live Science

WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM

---

Researchers plugged a "brain organoid" into an artificial intelligence system, using the neural tissue to help complete computational tasks. The experiment could mark a step toward "biocomputers."

 

[neurotix]

Lovely.

 

Title should read: "Scientists give us another scary and extremely dangerous invention with the potential for abuse, just like they gave us the bomb."

Edited December 14, 2023 by neurotix

[bonami2]

33 minutes ago, neurotix said:

Lovely.

 

Title should read: "Scientists give us another scary and extremely dangerous invention with the potential for abuse, just like they gave us the bomb."

Don't worry everything will be fine.

 

[pio]

5 hours ago, neurotix said:

Lovely.

 

Title should read: "Scientists give us another scary and extremely dangerous invention with the potential for abuse, just like they gave us the bomb."

QFT.  I'm all for innovation and whatnot, but we really shouldn't be combining "natural" with unnatural elements like this.  There's a time when scientists really should stop asking, "can we?" and they should instead start asking "should we?". -_-  

[GanjaSMK]

There is so much going on behind the scenes too. So, so much. So much very few people would likely even care to share, let alone able to. 

 

It's interesting to me where a lot of the theory for building AI comes from and how it is implemented. Based on what's publicly available and of the dozens and dozens of companies (and otherwise) working to create rationally thinking compute intelligence (able to reason), I see the solution already laid bare before us. Hear me out: 

 

Breaking it all down in a very simple way it would essentially be networked collage of mini systems, each with a system built on one (possibly multi) model that can be learned; fact based - such as simple mathematics. Combining all of the 'base structures of factual intelligence' they get divided into intelligent-self-contained-systems and those are linked with other systems that only reason and infer  with the available data. Somewhere in the system are other integrated systems which handle all of the things you need to learn to rationalize. Combine all of these systems together and add layers of complexity with subsets of these kinds of systems (ie; this large idea of a system broken down further into similarly large but 'bundled' smaller systems), and you're not far off from being able to get very, very, very close to AGI or even (if given the elective to learn and change it's own code/base structure, but perhaps still possible not to control - implement a kill switch) - a 'super' AGI (essentially uncontrollable, kill switch unattainable). And given that when you realize AI work has been a field for much longer than the current rendition of the 'internet' and subsequent technological advances, along with the introduction of worldwide computer adoption (all industries etc), we've paved the groundwork for a lot of these systems to get trained, basic, generalized - factually based data. Seems to me the stage for reasoning 'training' is already past as well - humans have been providing that kind of information in various forms readily available for analysis. And for me, this is the 'behind the scenes' issue if I have to read between the lines of the OpenAI fiasco in Nov. 

 

Ilya Sutskever is noted for boldly understanding the power requirements and technologies needed to enact connecting 'said' systems (with 'said' systems being all my own inference noed above and simply connecting the journalism covering Sutskever is the driving force pushing to find power/technology able to make the next iterations of AI possible because the ideology already exists in some form). If you run Sam Altman's route you kind of skirt the kill switch debate (not entirely), and you end up with a sort of - "well we can always unplug" approach and let the thing go. Sutskever doesn't think that's a good idea. But I think both agree on what and how to get where they need to go, obviously; otherwise you don't end up where we are now with OpenAI (at least on the surface). 

 

This is all just my two cents on things... interesting times for interesting technologies. 2024 is really going to get really interesting (as has been noted in the MSM). 

Edited December 16, 2023 by GanjaSMK

[neurotix]

I have a video of ELIZA on my Macintosh SE. An early AI Rogerian psychologist. It was developed in the 60s. Go read about it or something.

 

So yes, they've been working on this ish for a very long time now.

[neurotix]

Here you go @bonami2the original AI/Chatbot ported to classic Mac.