Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Growing Rat Neurons to Play Video Games [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXefdbQDjw
71 comments
Other videos on his channel is also quite interesting
Interesting is understatement, it's a channel which is one of the closer ones to hard science on the hard science - pop science spectrum and still having more than a million subscribers.
Some outstanding videos IMHO:
The channel owner applies himself a gene therapy to fix his lactose intolerance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY
How exactly the Covid Tests work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_usIkrVQwE
Growing Human Neurons Connected to a Computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2YDApNRK3g
Especially the Covid test video was eye opening against the conspiracy theorist propaganda during the pandemic because knowing how tests actually work on practical level makes you see through the claims effort free.
Some outstanding videos IMHO:
The channel owner applies himself a gene therapy to fix his lactose intolerance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY
How exactly the Covid Tests work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_usIkrVQwE
Growing Human Neurons Connected to a Computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2YDApNRK3g
Especially the Covid test video was eye opening against the conspiracy theorist propaganda during the pandemic because knowing how tests actually work on practical level makes you see through the claims effort free.
Couldn’t agree more! I’ve been following his channel from very long time, it’s one of the underrated gem YT channel.
Thought Emporium, Nile Red, and Styropyro are YouTubers who are a few degrees away from being dangerous criminals (I say this in the lightest way possible) but channel their talents for educational videos.
Are you serious or trying to make a joke? I don't get it. Generally nice people, maybe slightly narcissistic, like any youtuber, maybe irresponsible. These people are nowhere near being "dangerous criminals", that's just slander.
I'm not trying to slander them, they are very talented people. They are all people who know how to build dangerous things.
Every (experimental) scientist on earth knows how to build dangerous things.
That's true but I would wager most scientists don't stockpile on explosives and chemicals like cyanide and arscenic at home.
I really dislike your framing of chemistry enthusiasts as potential criminals. All the prohibition around chemicals makes it real hard to do fun stuff. Especially for people who don't want to break the law. Dangerous criminals don't care and will always find a way.
I wouldn't call it stockpiling if people keep small amounts of stuff around which they intent to use for (legal) experiments. It's not like he has tons of that stuff.
The real danger comes from farmers. Ammonium Nitrate (fertilizer) and diesel (tractors). They must be up to something [/s]
The real danger comes from farmers. Ammonium Nitrate (fertilizer) and diesel (tractors). They must be up to something [/s]
How so
Speaking of styropyro, he's very adept at sourcing less than savory laser parts and has no qualms putting those extremely high wattages to crazy uses. I'm still not sure the guy isn't blind and just faking it really well. No, really. I've got spots in my vision from using >5W lasers, I've no idea how he doesn't (Pro-Tip: don't put wedding rings in the laser path)
Nile Red is also really good at chemistry and seems to have no qualms doing questionable stuff. Think 'Things I Won't Work With', and then he works with it, a lot. Thank God he's not too into amines ... yet. The algorithm is going to push him ever more towards the boom-boom side of chemistry and he can only resist so long.
Speaking in prosecutor-terms, these guys more than have the means and opportunity, they need only the motive and the case is a slam dunk. The lines they walk are quite fine.
All that said, I love these guys and have for years. I'll continue to watch and support them as long as they can continue to upload, which is never a sure thing in their cases
Nile Red is also really good at chemistry and seems to have no qualms doing questionable stuff. Think 'Things I Won't Work With', and then he works with it, a lot. Thank God he's not too into amines ... yet. The algorithm is going to push him ever more towards the boom-boom side of chemistry and he can only resist so long.
Speaking in prosecutor-terms, these guys more than have the means and opportunity, they need only the motive and the case is a slam dunk. The lines they walk are quite fine.
All that said, I love these guys and have for years. I'll continue to watch and support them as long as they can continue to upload, which is never a sure thing in their cases
> Speaking in prosecutor-terms, these guys more than have the means and opportunity, they need only the motive and the case is a slam dunk. The lines they walk are quite fine.
What case are you talking about specifically? You're implying there's been a crime, can you expand on this?
What case are you talking about specifically? You're implying there's been a crime, can you expand on this?
Didn't I see someone fake this with dog cells ~15 years ago?
Well, that's horrifying
It’s a funny one.
At first: how horrifying to subject brain cells to the world of Doom!
After more info: oh, they don’t perceive the horrific setting nor possess the context to know they are in a simulation. They just have inputs and outputs, comfort and discomfort. That’s not so bad.
Upon deep reflection: oh God! We are just a scaled up version of this! Our perception of the world is just a tiny slice of reality filtered through limited senses. For all we know we could be trapped in a simulated hellscape with no chance of ever breaking free!
At first: how horrifying to subject brain cells to the world of Doom!
After more info: oh, they don’t perceive the horrific setting nor possess the context to know they are in a simulation. They just have inputs and outputs, comfort and discomfort. That’s not so bad.
Upon deep reflection: oh God! We are just a scaled up version of this! Our perception of the world is just a tiny slice of reality filtered through limited senses. For all we know we could be trapped in a simulated hellscape with no chance of ever breaking free!
"On that day, throwuwu discovered philosophy. He immersed himself in Descartes, Kant and Schopenhauer - in a world of doubts and cheating demons, phenomena and noumena, representations and suggestions of transcendence. Things would never be the same for him."
To be very cynical: We are trapped in a hellscape with no chance of ever breaking free, it does not matter one bit if it's simulated or not.
Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods (or simulation) and raises rocks.
Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods (or simulation) and raises rocks.
The crasiest part is that they train the neurons by just pulsing them in a "pleasing" way.
...what? Are they experiencing pleasure? It sounds a lot like they're experiencing pleasure.
...what? Are they experiencing pleasure? It sounds a lot like they're experiencing pleasure.
Likely we are in simulation with ppi resolution set to planck constant. Matrix isn't so far fetch. Now we have to wait for Neo.
"Planck constant" isn't the same as "Planck length". Please don't say the former when you mean the latter.
In addition: no, the planck length is not at all likely to be a consequence of discretization for the purpose of simulation. It is a length scale implied by various other constants. Like, if you considered the "laws of physics except gravity is stronger", you would end up with a different value for the Planck length. And, why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? It doesn't make sense.
Quantum mechanics does not fit with the idea of "well, it was hard to simulate the full thing, so we made some simplifications" with those simplifications being the reason for the parts of quantum mechanics that seem "weird". I know it is a popular idea, but it doesn't make sense.
Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier.
In addition: no, the planck length is not at all likely to be a consequence of discretization for the purpose of simulation. It is a length scale implied by various other constants. Like, if you considered the "laws of physics except gravity is stronger", you would end up with a different value for the Planck length. And, why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? It doesn't make sense.
Quantum mechanics does not fit with the idea of "well, it was hard to simulate the full thing, so we made some simplifications" with those simplifications being the reason for the parts of quantum mechanics that seem "weird". I know it is a popular idea, but it doesn't make sense.
Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier.
> Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier.
The universe apparently doesn’t think so. In fact there’s an argument that, in some sense, what the universe does should be one of the easiest ways to do it, otherwise the existence of the universe would be much more unlikely.
The universe apparently doesn’t think so. In fact there’s an argument that, in some sense, what the universe does should be one of the easiest ways to do it, otherwise the existence of the universe would be much more unlikely.
That seems to be assuming the speed prior (or perhaps memory-use prior, or some combination of the two). The Kolmogorov prior (i.e. the program length prior) doesn’t have that property.
> why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale?
Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take
Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take
Yes, it's true that changing the strength of stuff would change the possible values for the discretization scale that wouldn't cause problems,
but, it shouldn't be that changing the strength of gravity, 100% of the time force you to change the discretization scale regardless of what it currently is.
but, it shouldn't be that changing the strength of gravity, 100% of the time force you to change the discretization scale regardless of what it currently is.
More like, we have to invent Neo
FWIW, even if we are all in “prime” and this is not a simulation. There is always the possibility of inventing a way to elevate ourselves out into a higher dimension.
Either way, same goal really.
FWIW, even if we are all in “prime” and this is not a simulation. There is always the possibility of inventing a way to elevate ourselves out into a higher dimension.
Either way, same goal really.
"a higher dimension"? If you mean to suggest that our reality is like, a (3+1)D slice of something bigger, I don't think we have much reason to suspect that, and, even if it were true...
Well, ok, I suppose maybe we could construct some kind of vessels in this larger space which could like, well, if mind-uploading is achievable (or, even if just mind-transfer-to-a-new-medium is possible) then conceivably we could do that to be able to live in such higher-dimensional space?
But, unless it granted us more control over our environment in a useful way, I don't see why that would be particularly desirable? Well, I guess it probably would grant some more control, but like,
our minds, I think, are suited for the kinds of experiences that humans have generally had, not so much for, whatever constructed bodies we might somehow build for such a higher-dimensional space.
I don't mean like, "our minds aren't well-suited to navigating in higher-dimensional spaces, with higher-dimensional sensory-input". That might be true, but maybe we could adapt to that part without too much of an issue, idk.
Rather, I mean stuff like, it is important that we have things like, the feelings of sharing a meal with one's loved-ones, hugs, and other physical expressions of affection. (I am not making the claim that hugs are a human cultural universal. I don't know. But I'm fairly confident in my assumption that all successful human cultures have some form of physical expression of affection.)
Now, I'm not saying that such things would be inherently impossible with more dimensions of space. Why would they be? But, I'd imagine that even if our minds can adapt relatively easily to piloting a body in a higher-dimensional space, that, probably the combination of our minds and whatever bodies we constructed for navigating such a higher-dimensional space, and the kind of larger-environment that there might be in such higher-dimensional space (I imagine it being fairly desolate, as if there were things living there we would probably be toast already) would not be conducive to having those experiences in those bodies.
If you mean more generally, "some true-er view of reality" and not necessarily "higher-dimensional space" (but still in a way that differs substantially from reality-as-we-currently-perceive/experience-it)...
Well, sometimes I imagine that heaven might not operate like (3+1)-dimensional space (perhaps not corresponding to any kind of smooth manifold). In this case, I would imagine that this would be fine (by assumption of it being "heaven"), because either we would always have been designed so as to be compatible with it, or it would have been designed to be compatible with us, or both.
(side note: If I had to guess, I think my current guess is that heaven does actually, at least sorta-kinda-in-some-sense(not that I have an idea of "in what sense") be spatially 3D, or resemble that in some way. But, I'm not confident either way.)
But, if we are working under the assumption that reality doesn't hold those-we-would-regard-as-people as "special" in any way, such that we would have particular reason to expect it to be good to us outside the scope we find ourselves in currently, then, I would generally not expect this this "higher reality" or whatever, to be well-suited for us.
Maybe it could be exploited in some way, to make things better in this portion/view of reality, and maybe more parts could be made to be like this one, but, under the assumption of an uncaring universe, I would expect that any "higher/true-er reality" would not be really nice for living in.
Well, ok, I suppose maybe we could construct some kind of vessels in this larger space which could like, well, if mind-uploading is achievable (or, even if just mind-transfer-to-a-new-medium is possible) then conceivably we could do that to be able to live in such higher-dimensional space?
But, unless it granted us more control over our environment in a useful way, I don't see why that would be particularly desirable? Well, I guess it probably would grant some more control, but like,
our minds, I think, are suited for the kinds of experiences that humans have generally had, not so much for, whatever constructed bodies we might somehow build for such a higher-dimensional space.
I don't mean like, "our minds aren't well-suited to navigating in higher-dimensional spaces, with higher-dimensional sensory-input". That might be true, but maybe we could adapt to that part without too much of an issue, idk.
Rather, I mean stuff like, it is important that we have things like, the feelings of sharing a meal with one's loved-ones, hugs, and other physical expressions of affection. (I am not making the claim that hugs are a human cultural universal. I don't know. But I'm fairly confident in my assumption that all successful human cultures have some form of physical expression of affection.)
Now, I'm not saying that such things would be inherently impossible with more dimensions of space. Why would they be? But, I'd imagine that even if our minds can adapt relatively easily to piloting a body in a higher-dimensional space, that, probably the combination of our minds and whatever bodies we constructed for navigating such a higher-dimensional space, and the kind of larger-environment that there might be in such higher-dimensional space (I imagine it being fairly desolate, as if there were things living there we would probably be toast already) would not be conducive to having those experiences in those bodies.
If you mean more generally, "some true-er view of reality" and not necessarily "higher-dimensional space" (but still in a way that differs substantially from reality-as-we-currently-perceive/experience-it)...
Well, sometimes I imagine that heaven might not operate like (3+1)-dimensional space (perhaps not corresponding to any kind of smooth manifold). In this case, I would imagine that this would be fine (by assumption of it being "heaven"), because either we would always have been designed so as to be compatible with it, or it would have been designed to be compatible with us, or both.
(side note: If I had to guess, I think my current guess is that heaven does actually, at least sorta-kinda-in-some-sense(not that I have an idea of "in what sense") be spatially 3D, or resemble that in some way. But, I'm not confident either way.)
But, if we are working under the assumption that reality doesn't hold those-we-would-regard-as-people as "special" in any way, such that we would have particular reason to expect it to be good to us outside the scope we find ourselves in currently, then, I would generally not expect this this "higher reality" or whatever, to be well-suited for us.
Maybe it could be exploited in some way, to make things better in this portion/view of reality, and maybe more parts could be made to be like this one, but, under the assumption of an uncaring universe, I would expect that any "higher/true-er reality" would not be really nice for living in.
I don't anticipate it will be nice for living in.
Similarly,
I don't anticipate Mars will be nice for living in, until we Terraform it.
Why couldn't we both 1. find a way to "reach it", and 2. find a way to improve it in our favor?
I feel like it'll be the best puzzle yet! Asked differently: What keeps you motivated for society's success, and what will keep you motivated after that is accomplished (asked recursively)?
Similarly,
I don't anticipate Mars will be nice for living in, until we Terraform it.
Why couldn't we both 1. find a way to "reach it", and 2. find a way to improve it in our favor?
I feel like it'll be the best puzzle yet! Asked differently: What keeps you motivated for society's success, and what will keep you motivated after that is accomplished (asked recursively)?
Wait till you see what we do to actual rats.
Its like the setup for one of those episodes of Doctor Who that involves lots of running down long corridors
What is the role of stimulus during the growth phase of organoids?
Meaning: is it sufficient to grow an organoid and then connect it to the electrodes and go through the training process, or is there an advantage to growing the organoids _while_ connected to stimuli?
Naively, it seems like our brains are growing while receiving input and that could guide the growth process.
Meaning: is it sufficient to grow an organoid and then connect it to the electrodes and go through the training process, or is there an advantage to growing the organoids _while_ connected to stimuli?
Naively, it seems like our brains are growing while receiving input and that could guide the growth process.
[deleted]
maybe Tesla could finally do FSD with a bunch of rats neuralinked to the car
Can't wait to pre-order my 2024 Tesla RatKing
Imagine not being able to get somewhere because your car has caught a cold.
This was the plot line of Quake: an unholy union of organic lifeforms and machines went rogue.
I think that's Quake 2. I don't think Quake 1 had any kind of plotline.
Untrue, you kill the big demon at the end. Spoiler alert? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shub-Niggurath
So, autonomous kill drones?
Are we sure military hasn't gone further than a video game?
Are we sure military hasn't gone further than a video game?
why rat neurons and not people neurons?
It's explained in the video. Rat neurons are more than enough for this application and are much cheaper to come by.
But, funny that the reason was they were 'cheaper', not that you can't buy human neurons if you wanted to.
I’m not sure a more fundamental point is explained or addressed: when forming ad hoc networks like this do we expect anything different at all with human neurons ?
This is addressed in the video. Cells growing in a flat plane don't form complex connection as we would see in a real organ.
One way address that is to grow the as organoids. You can think of organoids like 'cells growing in a non-flat surface'. This mean the cells would have all 3 dimensions to grow and form connections.
The problem with that is that you need a LOT o cells, and they are expensive. The way around it is to create neurons from skin cells. But that has its own set of challenges.
One way address that is to grow the as organoids. You can think of organoids like 'cells growing in a non-flat surface'. This mean the cells would have all 3 dimensions to grow and form connections.
The problem with that is that you need a LOT o cells, and they are expensive. The way around it is to create neurons from skin cells. But that has its own set of challenges.
the video is half an hour long. probably the worst way to convey information
There’s a substantial amount of important visual information in the video. It’s not just stock photos.
Disagree. I’d rather listen to information while doing something else. Most info isn’t so important that I should stop moving and sit down and read it.
> listen to information while doing something else
Hard to find intellectual material that does not require full concentration. Even those few pieces that seem to be highly digestible - they typically do not speak to the intellect and/or do not get fully processed anyway, under condition of shared attention.
Hard to find intellectual material that does not require full concentration. Even those few pieces that seem to be highly digestible - they typically do not speak to the intellect and/or do not get fully processed anyway, under condition of shared attention.
It’s iflscience not ifwtsscienceid (want to study science in depth). :P
Thanks for the recommendation.
If you also can peek to videos in your multitasking: there are many related YT channels around, but if you are into leisure time spending on divulgational channels, there is probably little better around than
Curiosity Show, the Australian (Adelaide?) TV channel featuring Rob Morrison and Deane Hutton in the '70s and '80 - for the young;
Steve Mould, ongoing YT productions, picking stimulating topics of non immediate evidence.
If you also can peek to videos in your multitasking: there are many related YT channels around, but if you are into leisure time spending on divulgational channels, there is probably little better around than
Curiosity Show, the Australian (Adelaide?) TV channel featuring Rob Morrison and Deane Hutton in the '70s and '80 - for the young;
Steve Mould, ongoing YT productions, picking stimulating topics of non immediate evidence.
yt-dlp --skip-download --write-auto-sub
> inside your head is one of the greatest computers in the universe which is surprising because I've seen your b-
I.e. one can also quickly verify if it is for the wrong target.
So much good information is presented now as videos... I'm thinking of automating that. A service, which follows your watched yt videos feed and automatically saving a transcript. Maybe with some LLM summary and few screenshots - as simple html page.
I believe people keep producing videos, since it can be monetised nicely
I believe people keep producing videos, since it can be monetised nicely
You should work on an engine that adds punctuation to the subtitles. They are pretty raw as they come - they normally require some post-production to be made into structured text.
Probably something already exists? LLMs could be good for heuristically obtaining punctuated text - but since real understanding is required, other systems should be employed - such as a transformers based ANN (speech + raw_transcript → punctuated_text).
The issue of "real understanding" is that which should discourage «LLM [generated] summar[ies]» - I have not yet seen any that show actual understanding of the original. "No work" is often better than "bad work".
Probably something already exists? LLMs could be good for heuristically obtaining punctuated text - but since real understanding is required, other systems should be employed - such as a transformers based ANN (speech + raw_transcript → punctuated_text).
The issue of "real understanding" is that which should discourage «LLM [generated] summar[ies]» - I have not yet seen any that show actual understanding of the original. "No work" is often better than "bad work".
I did some initial tests and found that whisper.ai gets transcripts a loot better. Might improve punctuation.
Also, when asked to summarize, even Vicuna removed all portions of irrelevant talking (like to the crowd on a meeting) and jokes.
Might be worthwile to finish that
Also, when asked to summarize, even Vicuna removed all portions of irrelevant talking (like to the crowd on a meeting) and jokes.
Might be worthwile to finish that
boss: you might try doing X as your next project
me: ok
boss: actually, we can't do X, we don't have access
me: ok
boss: you might want to watch this video on X, though, it's interesting
me: noIt's a lot easier to work with rat neurons. TL;DR a bit like "why use Postgres when you could be using Oracle?" ... or something, just thought of that because process overhead really does lead to safety and compliance audits
Opinion that's years out of date:
Opinion that's years out of date:
* The biosafety level is lower (all human tissue is automatically BSL2 or BSL2+ because it might have HIV and stuff)
* The best neural cultures (neurons + supporting cells) come from actual tissue, there aren't good stable immortal cell lines for neural cells. So this generally means fetal cells which for human tissue involves a boatload of process and bureaucracy. Fetal rats, *comparatively* have little bureaucracy.
* iPSC cells (Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells / "stem cells harvested from adults") can generate neural cells but it's several stages removed, and still more process overhead if it's human tissue
* It's better to harvest actual brain tissue than grow them from progenitor lines. You can grab partially or fully differentiated cells by dissecting them out of specific locations (i.e. hippocampal neurons, dopaminergic neurons, ...). Forcing a population of progenitor cells to develop into what you want is a massive pain / still an "unsolved problem" in the sense that you can't buy a grow-a-brain kit. (NOT facetious, most labs that aren't dirt poor use kits as much as possible and it is TOTALLY worth it)i hate this, it makes me viscerally angry
As Stephen Colbert would say: "Hey scientists, how's the cure for cancer coming along?"
The new version of React took some priority...
Really, does no one see the connection to AI, and how humans are nothing but feedback loops. It's all just scale.