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

Technology

58157 readers
3636 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
197
Groundbreaking: Japanese scientists develop a technique to connect brain cells grown in the lab (www.breezyscroll.com)
submitted 5 months ago by i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 63 points 5 months 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...

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 42 points 5 months 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

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 5 months ago

I missed the name, thank you!

[–] i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months 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?

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months 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.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months 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.

[–] i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago

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

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 18 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago

Babies can literally do this, not impressed

[–] aleonem@lemmy.today 21 points 5 months ago

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

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 10 points 5 months ago

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

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months 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

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Next up: OI, Organic Intelligence

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Bio-neural gel packs from Star Trek Voyager.

[–] arcosenautic@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months 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.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 2 points 5 months 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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 2 points 5 months ago

Sorry, best we can do is servitors and Cherubs.

[–] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 5 months ago

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

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 3 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago

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

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 1 points 5 months 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.

[–] CazzoBuco@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That compares a whole human vs. A graphics card. If you only have connected brain cells, I imagine that it would be much cheaper than having to sustain a whole body.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 5 months ago

It's a pretty horrifying article tbh. The assumptions and conclusions it's making if you just start asking yourself how you actually save that energy should be obvious.