this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
196 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

72319 readers
3747 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
196
Groundbreaking: Japanese scientists develop a technique to connect brain cells grown in the lab (www.breezyscroll.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe I missed it but my ultimate pet peeve of these articles about scientific breakthroughs is that they neither credit a single name of a scientist in their article nor even just putting a single link to the work. I know its likely behind a paywall (darn you scientific publishing), but still!

I browsed a bit through Nature Communications and haven't seen the article...

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They did name someone. Googling his name returns this, which I assume is the right paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46787-7

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

I missed the name, thank you!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

more like darn you current interpretation of capitalism for forcing all of us to keep us hungry for profit in order to survive

surely there is a better economic model right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

If your understanding of "better" is following a single-party ideology, loss of freedom and individuality as well as censorship of speech, then yes, there are "better" models.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Journalists barely cite anything. "A study from this organisation says this." Don't tell you when it was published, or link to the official website. Nada.

Journalists are pretty trash at citing their sources on average. I think it's wild most countries don't seem to regulate this. It would do wonders for archives of news content so that you can actually follow up on the story to it's source.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

Credit goes to University of Tokyo’s Dr Yoshiho Ikeuchi and colleagues.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Now I wait for some internet strangers to tell me why is this not groundbreaking at all

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago

Babies can literally do this, not impressed

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Brain cells have already existed for millions of years. This is nothing revolutionary.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Bro, my brain alone has like millions of cells and these guys are getting all excited over, what, six!?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Nah chief, it's pretty groundbreaking. I mean we don't know how to specifically target existing connections to strengthen the sheathe between existing brain cells, but connecting two brain cells at all, manually, is such a feat

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Next up: OI, Organic Intelligence

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bio-neural gel packs from Star Trek Voyager.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry, best we can do is servitors and Cherubs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was always curious about those. Surely they can't be faster than computers right? I mean, whatever computers they have in the 24th century.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The idea was, as I remember, that they were most of all more efficient and performed certain tasks better(faster) than the regular computer

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No possible way for this to be turned evil. Lab grown brains? Definitely could never be evil.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should science cease to exist because most discoveries could be used for evil?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Rock technology and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine some future generations of CPUs, GPUs or APUs having little brain matter processors on them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

When your gaming pc slows down you have to refill the cerebral fluid container

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

this is far more likely to make things like recovery from quadriplegia possible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This seems like a better candidate for AI, GPUs are just to energy inefficient.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it still be AI if it gains its own intelligence?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Probably depends on our part in its emergence. If we purposely set it on a path that we think ends there, I would still call it artificial. If it emerges through a process unknown and unintended by us, I wouldn't.