This is why it is IP theft still, literally just an uncredited digital collage.

AI will hit a point where it can do far more advanced things.

Can't wait for Elon Musk to control your mind, eh?

If you didn’t read the study and base your understanding on the „feels“, how can you then go and critique it?

I read the article and the actual study, yes, of course.

The special thing about this study is that the artificial neuron is chemically mitigated.

It reacts to neurotransmitters (GABA, glutamine).

It has „real“ calcium (and potassium) ion canals.

And is also compatible with real (mouse) neurons.

Isn’t this interesting in your opinion? It’s a pretty novel thing.

Edit: also it’s not all only about computation in the narrower sense for me - if you read my comment I put the stress on neurobiological/neuropsychological applications of „computing“. This discovery could lead to a revolution in treatment of neurological disorders/brain damage etc.

The abstract: "Biointegrated neuromorphic hardware holds promise for new protocols to record/regulate signalling in biological systems. Making such artificial neural circuits successful requires minimal device/circuit complexity and ion-based operating mechanisms akin to those found in biology. Artificial spiking neurons, based on silicon-based complementary metal-oxide semiconductors or negative differential resistance device circuits, can emulate several neural features but are complicated to fabricate, not biocompatible and lack ion-/chemical-based modulation features. Here we report a biorealistic conductance-based organic electrochemical neuron (c-OECN) using a mixed ion–electron conducting ladder-type polymer with stable ion-tunable antiambipolarity. The latter is used to emulate the activation/inactivation of sodium channels and delayed activation of potassium channels of biological neurons. These c-OECNs can spike at bioplausible frequencies nearing 100 Hz, emulate most critical biological neural features, demonstrate stochastic spiking and enable neurotransmitter-/amino acid-/ion-based spiking modulation, which is then used to stimulate biological nerves in vivo. These combined features are impossible to achieve using previous technologies."

So seven years before this leaves the lab, and seven more before it is mass produced in a meaningful way?

Same dude, it feels very much like that second when the pilot finally starts take off.

We'll reach a plateau soon. Progress is not linear.

Ted had a terrific understanding of the problem, just went about it the wrong way, you don't fight the system, you exploit the system!

Wat? The unibomber? Da fuk?

I miss Ted Kaczynski. Ya'know that man had an IQ of 167 in High School? He has a really sweet and nice voice too, not the kind you would be expecting from the face, heh heh. He's not dead, well, not yet anyway.

[deleted]

I think us Americans have plenty of excess energy to power some brain upgrade modules and can you just came up with one of the first apps for your upgrade, an ad blocking antivirus firewall for your brain.

I suppose it would depend on which 'we' that the question is addressing. Certainly it seems like most 'average' people are still relatively unaware of how fast these kinds of things are advancing.

I think however much AI actually improves from here, we've definitely reached a point where it is going to start rapidly changing the world, if only because more and more people are rushing to start messing around and experimenting with AI in all their myriad creative ways.

[deleted]

Projecting fantasies like complete post scarcity or a global UBI is pointless. A AGI would be like adding a lots of smart humans to the planet, anything less than AGI will give us the tools to do more ourselves. That's it. We'll still have climate disruption and ressource scarcity, for example. Political gatekeeping also won't stop, not at least because of the former mentioned things.

Deep learning started to work in 2012 thanks to GPUs. It has been a decade. I don't expect the trend to continue into 2030 unless something changes that. But we will be left with a diverse ecosystem of AI services. This will create more billionaires, but even more paupers. Unless we manage to democratize AI. Unless it becomes open source and easy to use for everyone on Earth.

Dr.Simonz knows what's up. I like the way you think.

Our head doesn't have to be bigger to have more of organic brain. Our head doesn't have to be bigger to have more brain. People with Hydrocephalus have reduced brain volume due to fluid accumulation in their head, yet some of them are still able to function relatively normal with the condition and some don't even know they have it. It seems human's brain can still function even with reduced volume but more dense and this is not that unique at all, some small animal make up for their small head by having a denser brain neuron eg. Goldcrest has almost 50 times neuron density per mg compare to a human brain. Of course I don't know how all this would translate to mental capabilities but it still shows that we can have the same brain mass even with a smaller head, and it would be interesting to see higher neuron density in an average size human head as well.

This is a very neat concept, in all honesty! If we are able to make some of these aspects better, and then integrate all of those AI, as was suggested with ChatGPT + WolframAlpha to a lesser extent. The results would be simply amazing, as we would essentially have created Proto AGI! We are 10-15 years from doing this, from creating Proto AGI. It will just take such a long time to make these systems better and integrate them so that the response is as fast or faster than ChatGPT.

Source: Dr. Alan Thompson - YouTube

Writing is editing. AI is not good at line editing or structural editing. It beats humans on quantity, but it hasn't been taught the basics: show not tell, avoid adverbs, avoid long sentences, try not to repeat yourself, keep the story consistent.

AI has been trained to not be biased. This is good of course, but when you write a story, you have to choose a side. You need to choose a coherent setting and cast of characters. So in the absence of personal preferences and history, AI can only choose the most prevalent patterns in the training data or random stuff. This means clichés or something incoherent. Also the training data is not up to date with modern ideas AFAIK. It leans toward books written before 1920.

So I think the question should be when can AI edit properly? When and how can it build a personal style and history? I don't think that throwing money and data at this is enough. Knowledge of psychology, neuromorphic hardware, spiking neural networks, extreme learning machines, or something else entirely is required. So a decade is probably insufficient.

yeah these "neurons" don't actually do anything except transmit an electrical signal slower than a wire...

they simulated action potentials, which is just the way the cells use chemical gradients to send a signal from the body of the neuron to the synapses, and has nothing to do with it's computational capacity.

did anyone in these comments actually read the study? this isn't a useful simulation for computation, all it's doing is mimicking action potentials.

this is not what the article is about... they didn't use amino acids in any way and these "neurons" definitely weren't used in a mouse because they don't actually function as a neuron, they just mimic the most basic aspect of how a neuron sends a signal along itself, and nothing about how they communicate with eachother.

> <salient context> + <current symbol buffer> + neural network

That's RNN (recurrent neural network). As far as I know LSTM is still state of the art for them. And it struggles with long-term dependencies.

[He checks papers]

It looks like combination of transformer and LSTM does provide some benefits, but nothing groundbreaking yet.

> and is very forgetful

To be more precise it has no long-term or procedural memory at all and it can't learn (from your interactions).