[hamdani yusuf]

How will the use of such technologies be regulated?
What rights will fruits grown in artificial conditions have?

Different jurisdiction will have different regulations. They will compete against one another to produce optimal results, which are also affected by local conditions.
Rights are social construct. Someone who lives in solitude has no use of them. Afaik, there's no known benefit from giving rights to fruits.

[hamdani yusuf]

Brain computer interface is about as unlikely as flying pigs. A lot of people assume that the human brain is a computer- this is not the case and our knowledge of how the brain works is still primitive.

How did you calculate that probability?
What do you think brain is for?
Why can't our knowledge improved in the future?

[paul cotter]

I don't need to calculate the probability of such an extremely remote possibility. You should try learning some neurology and the extremely complicated biochemistry involved before comparing the brain to a computer. Your brain is not "for" anything, your brain is you. I never said advancement was not possible but the idea of interfacing the brain with a computer is beyond science fiction(it is possible to control motor functions with directly connected electrodes but this will become an increasingly hazardous procedure as the bacteria/antibiotic war is progressively being lost).

[alancalverd]

Brain computer interface is about as unlikely as flying pigs.

I first saw this pig fly in 1992, as a student project at the Technical University of Graz. No implant, but some very subtle decoding of EEG signals.

We have been using cochlear implants to encode audio inputs to the brain for even longer.

As long as you keep AI out of the  picture, direct electronic interface communication between the brain and the outside world can be very valuable. 

[paul cotter]

Yes of course, Alan, but the brain does not have a bidirectional port for thoughts, as Hamdani seems to think, for computer interface. Things like cochlear implants and deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's are modalities to overcome disability, not to improve on the basic normal brain function.

[hamdani yusuf]

I don't need to calculate the probability of such an extremely remote possibility. You should try learning some neurology and the extremely complicated biochemistry involved before comparing the brain to a computer. Your brain is not "for" anything, your brain is you. I never said advancement was not possible but the idea of interfacing the brain with a computer is beyond science fiction(it is possible to control motor functions with directly connected electrodes but this will become an increasingly hazardous procedure as the bacteria/antibiotic war is progressively being lost).

https://www.wingsforlife.com/uk/latest/recent-advancements-in-brain-computer-interfaces-en

Behind the scenes
Due to the invasiveness of the procedure, studies testing BCIs in humans are understandably lengthy. This is to ensure the safety of the patients and to verify that the devices remain operative over extended periods. While Neuralink announced a five-year lasting follow-up, the BrainGate trial is set to reach completion by 2038, meaning in 14 years' time.

Sometimes reality  feels stranger than fiction, especially for those who don't follow most recent  updates on science and technology.

[alancalverd]

A single truly bidirectional port, or lack of, is of no consequence. We have a few effectively bidirectional sensor/effectors, and the human hand is a particularly good example that can input pressure and temperature and output force. But most data arrives in the form of hearing and vision and is output as speech, so the intermediate wiring is of no more importance than whether your telephone works on bidirectional package switching on two wires, or four separate wires.

Apropos Hamdani's concern over the length of human implant trials, there is a serious ethical question to be considered beyond the questions of chemical compatibility:

The first effective cochlear implants were 4-channel devices, which were supplanted by 16 and 24-channel units. So far, no problem - everyone expects technology to improve over time. But CIs work best if implanted in very young kids diagnosed with profound deafness  whilst the brain is still very plastic, and reworking to accommodate a new unit involves serious surgical risk and a lot of brain reprogramming. So we have made our patient's life and safety dependent on a device  that requires maintenance for at least 70 years. Problem is that the commercial life of any electronic product is about 5 years, and the lifetime of a small medical device company rarely exceeds 20 years. So who is going to hold the stock of spare parts for a tiny number of obsolete machines manufactured 50 years ago by a now-defunct company?

[hamdani yusuf]

The first effective cochlear implants were 4-channel devices, which were supplanted by 16 and 24-channel units. So far, no problem - everyone expects technology to improve over time. But CIs work best if implanted in very young kids diagnosed with profound deafness  whilst the brain is still very plastic, and reworking to accommodate a new unit involves serious surgical risk and a lot of brain reprogramming. So we have made our patient's life and safety dependent on a device  that requires maintenance for at least 70 years. Problem is that the commercial life of any electronic product is about 5 years, and the lifetime of a small medical device company rarely exceeds 20 years. So who is going to hold the stock of spare parts for a tiny number of obsolete machines manufactured 50 years ago by a now-defunct company?

Perhaps it will be the time to consider upgrade or migrate to newer systems. That's why safe dismantling method should be considered in the design before installing a system as part of its life cycle.

[hamdani yusuf]

https://www.youtube.com/live/rvBWNTevhcM?feature=shared
The Atomic Human - understanding ourselves in the age of AI (repeat) | The Royal Society

This event is part of the Royal Society's Summer Science Exhibition 2024.

What if machines could think like humans? Can AI truly understand us? Ever wondered how AI will shape our future?

Discover some of the answers with Neil Lawrence, one of the world?s foremost experts in AI and machine learning. In this insightful talk, Neil Lawrence will reveal how AI serves as a powerful assistant to human intelligence, not a replacement. He will discuss the limits of AI in replicating human thought and its profound impact on society and information management.

Additionally, the talk will explore our society?s fascination and fears about AI, examining its influence on human identity. Lawrence will give an overview of the current state of AI, the challenges we face, and the importance of transparency and data quality. This session will offer valuable insights into the real-world applications of AI and its future.

Neil Lawrence is the inaugural DeepMind Professor of Machine Learning at the University of Cambridge where he is also the academic lead of AI-Cam, the University?s flagship mission on AI. He has been working on machine learning models for over 25 years. He returned to academia in 2019 after three years as Director of Machine Learning at Amazon. He is also a Senior AI Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute, visiting Professor at the University of Sheffield and author of the forthcoming book The Atomic Human - understanding ourselves in the age of AI.

[hamdani yusuf]

I don't need to calculate the probability of such an extremely remote possibility. You should try learning some neurology and the extremely complicated biochemistry involved before comparing the brain to a computer. Your brain is not "for" anything, your brain is you. I never said advancement was not possible but the idea of interfacing the brain with a computer is beyond science fiction(it is possible to control motor functions with directly connected electrodes but this will become an increasingly hazardous procedure as the bacteria/antibiotic war is progressively being lost).

https://www.wingsforlife.com/uk/latest/recent-advancements-in-brain-computer-interfaces-en

Behind the scenes
Due to the invasiveness of the procedure, studies testing BCIs in humans are understandably lengthy. This is to ensure the safety of the patients and to verify that the devices remain operative over extended periods. While Neuralink announced a five-year lasting follow-up, the BrainGate trial is set to reach completion by 2038, meaning in 14 years' time.

Sometimes reality  feels stranger than fiction, especially for those who don't follow most recent  updates on science and technology.

NEW: Elon Musk MASSIVE Neuralink Update!
https://x.com/neuralink/status/1811095113281720722
They go into quite detail in the interview/discussion/presentation here.

[alancalverd]

Perhaps it will be the time to consider upgrade or migrate to newer systems. That's why safe dismantling method should be considered in the design before installing a system as part of its life cycle.

That doesn't answer any of the ethical questions.
The most effective time for a cochlear implant is as soon as you have a confident diagnosis of profound deafness, and a patient able to tolerate the surgery - generally before the age of 5.  So do you wait for  the next generation of devices, knowing that the result may be less satisfactory than proceeding with what you have?
Problem with "safe dismantling" is that the human body is very dynamic. Fishing anything out of the head after it has been in place for even a couple of months involves delving into the unknown (no two people heal from surgery in exactly the same way) with risk of serious damage being the only certainty.
In almost every case, other than infection or total failure of the implant, the balance of risk and benefit is to stick with what you have and accept that the next patient will probably end up with more acute hearing and clearer speech. But the maintenance problem remains: the commercial life of most medical devices is about 5 years, and spare parts for any device with a production run of less than a million are almost impossible to obtain after 10 years. But humans work pretty well for over 80 years.

[hamdani yusuf]

Perhaps it will be the time to consider upgrade or migrate to newer systems. That's why safe dismantling method should be considered in the design before installing a system as part of its life cycle.

That doesn't answer any of the ethical questions.
The most effective time for a cochlear implant is as soon as you have a confident diagnosis of profound deafness, and a patient able to tolerate the surgery - generally before the age of 5.  So do you wait for  the next generation of devices, knowing that the result may be less satisfactory than proceeding with what you have?
Problem with "safe dismantling" is that the human body is very dynamic. Fishing anything out of the head after it has been in place for even a couple of months involves delving into the unknown (no two people heal from surgery in exactly the same way) with risk of serious damage being the only certainty.
In almost every case, other than infection or total failure of the implant, the balance of risk and benefit is to stick with what you have and accept that the next patient will probably end up with more acute hearing and clearer speech. But the maintenance problem remains: the commercial life of most medical devices is about 5 years, and spare parts for any device with a production run of less than a million are almost impossible to obtain after 10 years. But humans work pretty well for over 80 years.

Which ethical questions?
It depends on the agreement before the medical procedure was executed, considering the price and risks according to the best knowledge of that time, assuming that both parties are being honest and open in the discussion preceding the agreement.

[cpu68 (OP)]

In the future, we will probably move to extracorporeal reproduction in artificial conditions.

[hamdani yusuf]

I expect that descendants of humans will be able to improve their own bodies through science and technology. Assuming that no global catastrophic event will occur before then, which leads to their extinction.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Once a species reaches its maximally enlarged head, one can imagine moving on to extracorporeal brain development and creating meter- or multi-meter-long brains in special devices that would be fed and kept alive by this maximally developed species. This would therefore be a hybrid species (two species cooperating with each other).

[cpu68 (OP)]

Perhaps there will be only a few such huge brains.

[hamdani yusuf]

Perhaps there will be only a few such huge brains.

What would they be useful for?

[cpu68 (OP)]

What would they be useful for?

To solve the most diverse problems, theoretical and practical. To build theories, develop new technologies, etc.

[hamdani yusuf]

What would they be useful for?

To solve the most diverse problems, theoretical and practical. To build theories, develop new technologies, etc.

Any biological neural network including brain is constrained by its physical size. Artificial neural networks have no such constraint. Thus they can be much more effective and efficient in doing what brains are supposed to do.

[hamdani yusuf]

Mutation Bias: Were We Wrong About Evolution?

Are mutations truly random? Yes?but not in the way you might think. In this video, we break down what scientists mean by "random" when talking about mutations and why it?s a bit more nuanced than you might expect.

While cells don?t decide which mutations they want next and then actively cause them, mutations don?t occur with equal probability across the genome. Factors like DNA?s physical structure, repair mechanisms, and (this is currently debated) even past selection pressures can influence mutation patterns.

Recent research suggests natural selection might shape these mutation biases, shaping genome structure to prioritize protection of vital genes?much like how your skeleton evolved to protect vital organs. But how much do these biases influence evolution?

CORRECTIONS
We got a technical correction on the deamination diagram from viewer, @johnathancorgan3994:
Nicely done. Very minor nit: the cytosine structure is missing a hydrogen, and the uracil has an extra bond between the carbon and nitrogen