News Human brain organoid bioprocessors now available to rent for $500 per month

[Admin]

FinalSpark, the firm behind Neuroplatform, has begun to offer paid 24-7 remote access to its bioprocessors. Academic customers can now access this biocomputing platform, featuring four shared organoids, for $500 per user per month.

Human brain organoid bioprocessors now available to rent for $500 per month : Read more

 

[vanadiel007]

For some reason Dr. Evil comes to mind: 1 million.

 

[usertests]

What if it goes on strike?

 

[gg83]

Very interesting.

 

[Elf_Boy]

I question how using human brain tissue is ethical?

How long does it survive?

If they keep making bigger organoids when do they start to think?

No doubt there are answers to some/all of these questions. I am interested in seeing them.

 

[bluvg]

Here's your chance to play with the Star Trek Voyager computer's precursor.

 

[bit_user]

FinalSpark hopes that adopting bioprocessors based on biological neurons rather than transistors could significantly impact the incredible energy expenditure we often hear about in the tech world. Saving billions of watts when training LLMs or other intensive tasks should also be a positive for the environment.

I think these are for research and not a substitute for digital artificial neural networks. AFAIK, there's no way to read out the weights from one organoid or program them into another. That's a key capability computers offer that biology simply lacks. It takes like 10k GPU hours to train a huge LLM, but then you can replicate it and deploy it for inferencing very cheaply.

Also, you surely know how hard it is to learn even a fraction of what some of these popular LLMs know. And that's using your whole human brain. There's no way an organoid is going to learn data on the scale of what LLMs deal with.

Finally... oh I must've forgotten!
: D

 

[bit_user]

What if it goes on strike?

Or maybe your training drives it insane?

...but seriously, I'm sure it needs to sleep, right? Sleep is a biological requirement of real neurons. I'm pretty sure everything with a brain or central nervous system sleeps - even insects.

 

[usertests]

Also, you surely know how hard it is to learn even a fraction of what some of these popular LLMs know. And that's using your whole human brain. There's no way an organoid is going to learn data on the scale of what LLMs deal with.

I think we'll end up seeing brain-computer hybrid technology to get the best of both worlds, IF literal biology is going to play any significant role at all in future computing/AI. Organoids could also be run in parallel with fast interconnects.

Brain-inspired neuromorphic computing can also be a lot more efficient than AI-focused GPUs. But it won't die if you don't give it nutrients on schedule.

We haven't even scratched the surface of what's possible, because unlike organoids, we don't have massively multi-layered monolithic 3D chips, neuromorphic or otherwise (if the neuron-like elements use infrequent spikes like neurons, that lowers power consumption and heat, which is one of the biggest issues with 3D).

I question how using human brain tissue is ethical?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_organoid

Brain organoids are permitted in part because they are small and simple, avoiding the ethics issues. You have to wonder if connecting them in parallel or some other tricks could increase their capabilities.

I've heard 1 year for survival but they may have extended that.

 

[bit_user]

I think we'll end up seeing brain-computer hybrid technology to get the best of both worlds, IF literal biology is going to play any significant role at all in future computing/AI. Organoids could also be run in parallel with fast interconnects.

Brain-inspired neuromorphic computing can also be a lot more efficient than AI-focused GPUs. But it won't die if you don't give it nutrients on schedule.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room, which is how to read out & program the weights. Unless/until you solve that, I see these organoids being useful only for a limited range of research projects.

We haven't even scratched the surface of what's possible, because unlike organoids, we don't have massively multi-layered monolithic 3D chips, neuromorphic or otherwise (if the neuron-like elements use infrequent spikes like neurons, that lowers power consumption and heat, which is one of the biggest issues with 3D).

I have no idea why you think the physical structure of chips needs to match that of a 3D brain. Computer memory is effectively 1-dimensional (it all gets mapped into a linear address range), but we can use it to represent & process N-dimensional data.

Sure, if you have a distributed memory or processing-in-memory architecture, then you can derive better power-efficiency by employing chip-stacking, but it's really just a power-saving technique. Any network topology can be processed as a graph, which you can map to a linear or planar array of processors.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

I question how using human brain tissue is ethical?

How long does it survive?

If they keep making bigger organoids when do they start to think?

No doubt there are answers to some/all of these questions. I am interested in seeing them.

Either this is an elaborate hoax or this is an ethical scandal of epic proportions. The fact that this has played out many times in movies as a trope and nobody is raising ethical concerns in these articles leads me to believe the former is true, but get me off this world if it's the latter.

 

[bit_user]

Either this is an elaborate hoax or this is an ethical scandal of epic proportions. The fact that this has played out many times in movies as a trope and nobody is raising ethical concerns in these articles leads me to believe the former, but get me off this world if it's the latter.

Before you freak out, always do a sanity-check.

They said these organoids are up to 100k neurons. A normal, adult human brain has about 86 Billion neurons. That's about a million times the size of these things! Even a humble mouse brain has about 70 M neurons, or about a thousand times the size of these.

So, no ethical concerns, IMO. These things aren't going to be doing any sort of high-level cognition or have any kind of self-awareness. It's not going to run a LLM and you're not going to have a conversation with it.

 

[usertests]

I have no idea why you think the physical structure of chips needs to match that of a 3D brain. Computer memory is effectively 1-dimensional (it all gets mapped into a linear address range), but we can use it to represent & process N-dimensional data.

Ask an organoid, it will tell you why.

 

[Giroro]

TIL My next onlyfans is going to be called "Forbidden Organoid".

 

[Dr3ams]

General Atomics International and their Robobrains are coming...

 

[ThomasKinsley]

Before you freak out, always do a sanity-check.

They said these organoids are up to 100k neurons. A normal, adult human brain has about 86 Billion neurons. That's about a million times the size of these things! Even a humble mouse brain has about 70 M neurons, or about a thousand times the size of these.

So, no ethical concerns, IMO. These things aren't going to be doing any sort of high-level cognition or have any kind of self-awareness. It's not going to run a LLM and you're not going to have a conversation with it.

The ethics is not in the quantity but in the property itself. Owning or renting someone else's body parts to use as a tool is a huge issue. It also matters how it's treated. Is it ethical for a TechRax or JerryRigEverything to tear apart a device and destroy the neurons?

We also know technology scales up over time. If it's 100k neurons today, why won't a company offer a product with 200k tomorrow? At what exact number is it ethically wrong?

And if we can use neurons for thinking tasks, suppose we grow human arms and mate them to machines for manipulation tasks. Or imagine drones with real human legs running around. When do we say a line has been crossed? I would say at the very beginning. Everything else is just another neuron or cell added to the equation.

But like I said, I still have reason to suspect this might be an elaborate hoax. The idea of "training" brain tissue and using it to form desired calculations is dubious at best.

 

[LibertyWell]

The ethics is not in the quantity but in the property itself. Owning or renting someone else's body parts to use as a tool is a huge issue. It also matters how it's treated. Is it ethical for a TechRax or JerryRigEverything to tear apart a device and destroy the neurons?

We also know technology scales up over time. If it's 100k neurons today, why won't a company offer a product with 200k tomorrow? At what exact number is it ethically wrong?

And if we can use neurons for thinking tasks, suppose we grow human arms and mate them to machines for manipulation tasks. Or imagine drones with real human legs running around. When do we say a line has been crossed? I would say at the very beginning. Everything else is just another neuron or cell added to the equation.

But like I said, I still have reason to suspect this might be an elaborate hoax. The idea of "training" brain tissue and using it to form desired calculations is dubious at best.

This may be the clip you're looking for:

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

The ethics is not in the quantity but in the property itself. Owning or renting someone else's body parts to use as a tool is a huge issue. It also matters how it's treated. Is it ethical for a TechRax or JerryRigEverything to tear apart a device and destroy the neurons?

We also know technology scales up over time. If it's 100k neurons today, why won't a company offer a product with 200k tomorrow? At what exact number is it ethically wrong?

And if we can use neurons for thinking tasks, suppose we grow human arms and mate them to machines for manipulation tasks. Or imagine drones with real human legs running around. When do we say a line has been crossed? I would say at the very beginning. Everything else is just another neuron or cell added to the equation.

But like I said, I still have reason to suspect this might be an elaborate hoax. The idea of "training" brain tissue and using it to form desired calculations is dubious at best.

I mean scientists and doctors have been using human cells and organoids for research and development and as tools for decades at this point. Key areas like cancer and neurological research have been using human neurons as tools for a long time? If you're worried about people taking another persons cells, then breeding/cloning them to use for their own purposes, I feel like that ship has unfortunately already sailed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Moore v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree its pretty unsettling and that the ethical question is still out there for thinking machines with many human body parts, but I feel like big corporations are just gonna push through with it regardless (it its profitable). I mean look at how machine learning & AI developed? Companies trained models first and asked for permission/settled later. Only after it got big did a lot of people start to wonder if it was ethical (or legal) for AI to train on a ton of other peoples work.

However, I don't think this company specifically is an elaborate hoax. Theres plenty of scientific research on traning neurons/brain tissue. Theres even a neat youtube channel thats documenting their attempt at training a rat brain organoid to play doom (and the myriad of interesting side technologies they have to get right in order to do so): https://www.youtube.com/@thethoughtemporium/

If a youtuber (albeit one experienced in the field) can set out to train neurons to do such a thing I don't see why training brain tissue to perform calculations is dubious at all. They're are certainly many published papers on the matter and although its definitely an early field, I can't see why it has to be hoax. It does look like a very early academic focused product though, especially when its current partners are all research universities.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

I mean scientists and doctors have been using human cells and organoids for research and development and as tools for decades at this point. Key areas like cancer and neurological research have been using human neurons as tools for a long time?

Just because something has been done for a while does not mean it should continue. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study occurred for decades before it was terminated, and only because people spoke up against it.

We really need to define what is the issue here. It's one thing for scientists to isolate, study, and test cells with consent for the purpose of saving life. It's quite another thing to mass produce body parts or tissue for the purpose of renting or selling and not for the purpose of saving life. Turning human body parts into commodities is a huge ethical problem. I hope it is clear enough why that is the case. It's not as far of a leap from body parts to people as some may think.

If you're worried about people taking another persons cells, then breeding/cloning them to use for their own purposes, I feel like that ship has unfortunately already sailed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

I am well aware of this case and I absolutely think we can bring that ship back in. No consent was given by the woman, so who should her DNA belong to? Scientists simply took her DNA as their own property, much like they once took their specimens directly from graves. It can be argued that these immortal cell lines are used for important work, such as genome mapping, but one cell line derived from an aborted baby (HEK 293) drew controversy when it was reportedly being used in the corporate world to develop new flavor profiles for soda drinks. All this to avoid the hassle of having people do taste tests and provide feedback the normal way. How does this fulfil the Hippocratic Oath?

Remember Tuskegee. Just because something has been done for decades does not mean it ought to continue that way. People spoke up and stopped the syphilis tests. More can be done today.

If a youtuber (albeit one experienced in the field) can set out to train neurons to do such a thing I don't see why training brain tissue to perform calculations is dubious at all. They're are certainly many published papers on the matter and although its definitely an early field, I can't see why it has to be hoax. It does look like a very early academic focused product though, especially when its current partners are all research universities.

I watched part of his video. His first set of neurons died on the sheet. The second set showed signal spikes, but no game was played. There might be some results here. I'm not saying it's impossible, but what sounds far more likely to me that this is being overhyped and perhaps intentionally so.

 

[TCA_ChinChin]

Just because something has been done for a while does not mean it should continue. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study occurred for decades before it was terminated, and only because people spoke up against it.

We really need to define what is the issue here. It's one thing for scientists to isolate, study, and test cells with consent for the purpose of saving life. It's quite another thing to mass produce body parts or tissue for the purpose of renting or selling and not for the purpose of saving life. Turning human body parts into commodities is a huge ethical problem. I hope it is clear enough why that is the case. It's not as far of a leap from body parts to people as some may think.


I am well aware of this case and I absolutely think we can bring that ship back in. No consent was given by the woman, so who should her DNA belong to? Scientists simply took her DNA as their own property, much like they once took their specimens directly from graves. It can be argued that these immortal cell lines are used for important work, such as genome mapping, but one cell line derived from an aborted baby (HEK 293) drew controversy when it was reportedly being used in the corporate world to develop new flavor profiles for soda drinks. All this to avoid the hassle of having people do taste tests and provide feedback the normal way. How does this fulfil the Hippocratic Oath?

Remember Tuskegee. Just because something has been done for decades does not mean it ought to continue that way. People spoke up and stopped the syphilis tests. More can be done today.


I watched part of his video. His first set of neurons died on the sheet. The second set showed signal spikes, but no game was played. There might be some results here. I'm not saying it's impossible, but what sounds far more likely to me that this is being overhyped and perhaps intentionally so.

I agree that things should be looked into more. I'm just not hopeful that things will be reigned in as they should though. I brought up the youtuber not cause he's currently successful, but because its completely possible and there is a whole field of industry developed around it and to support such types of experiments + projects. It's a series of several videos that he acknowledges himself is the earliest stages. We can agree to disagree that its "overhyped" but I don't see why this isn't a logical developedment from existing neuroscience + machine learning/ai. I can't see this as being "hyped" at all really seeing as its mostly still an academic product.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

I agree that things should be looked into more. I'm just not hopeful that things will be reigned in as they should though. I brought up the youtuber not cause he's currently successful, but because its completely possible and there is a whole field of industry developed around it and to support such types of experiments + projects. It's a series of several videos that he acknowledges himself is the earliest stages. We can agree to disagree that its "overhyped" but I don't see why this isn't a logical developedment from existing neuroscience + machine learning/ai. I can't see this as being "hyped" at all really seeing as its mostly still an academic product.

One of the older studies in this field claimed the training regimen involved a carrot/stick approach of stimulating the neurons with predictable electric pulses versus "chaotic" and undesirable streams of white noise. The careful balance of these two impulses allegedly led to the cells (partially) learning Pong. In other words, the neurons are not being trained on data sets but by using the same strategy as a treat/stick on a dog.

Setting ethics aside for just a moment, that explanation presents far more questions than answers, including whether cells would care for such impulses, how cells would understand the impulses being given, how they remember and choose one over the other, and how that translates into calculated input. As for academia, I think it's great, but I would temper that exuberance with a healthy dose of skepticism. https://retractionwatch.com is the perfect inoculation to claims.

I still lean towards this being overhyped for various reasons. And if I'm wrong, then we live in a much darker world.

 

[bit_user]

The ethics is not in the quantity but in the property itself. Owning or renting someone else's body parts to use as a tool is a huge issue.

There is a whole industry trading in human remains for various medical and non-medical uses. There are ways to do it that some would consider ethical, mostly involving informed consent without any form of coercion or duress. Some would say people shouldn't sell their remains, and therefore no exchange of money should be involved. I can see both sides of that argument, but it's probably best not to open that particular can of worms.

We also know technology scales up over time. If it's 100k neurons today, why won't a company offer a product with 200k tomorrow? At what exact number is it ethically wrong?

I think the challenges needed to grow a near normal human brain in vitro are numerous and non-trivial. However, it's fair to ask where the cutoff should be, which we'd certainly want to know well in advance of when we reach it. I'd say it should be a couple orders of magnitude before the point where we believe sentience and conscious thought can occur.

And if we can use neurons for thinking tasks, suppose we grow human arms and mate them to machines for manipulation tasks. Or imagine drones with real human legs running around.

I don't see a fundamental problem with that. Human organs are already being grown in pigs for transplantation to human recipients.

IMO, the only ethical problem with growing human organs or limbs is just around securing the rights to use the cell line.

When do we say a line has been crossed? I would say at the very beginning. Everything else is just another neuron or cell added to the equation.

You're like 100 years too late, then. If the topic interests you that much, it's basically an entire field by now. You should probably plan to do some reading.

But like I said, I still have reason to suspect this might be an elaborate hoax.

Doesn't seem like it, based on the other articles on it that I've seen. At this price, neuroscience and a few AI researchers will probably try it out and I'd wager it would quickly be found out if fraudulent.

Quite frankly, the price strikes me as almost too low. As a scam, I think it wouldn't be a very good one. They should charge more like $10k, so they'll at least make enough to be worth their trouble before they get outed.

We really need to define what is the issue here.

Again, you're like super late to this party. Probably hundreds of books, academic papers, and even entire academic journals have been written on the subject. I think it'd be a good idea what some really smart medical ethicists have written on the subject.

It's one thing for scientists to isolate, study, and test cells with consent for the purpose of saving life. It's quite another thing to mass produce body parts or tissue for the purpose of renting or selling and not for the purpose of saving life.

Okay, so basically you're advocating to virtually stop medical research. At some point or another, most medical research aimed at eventually saving human lives and alleviating human suffering involves in vitro tests on human tissue. So, that's quite an extreme position, if you're saying no human tissue should be used outside of direct medical interventions.

 

[bit_user]

If you're worried about people taking another persons cells, then breeding/cloning them to use for their own purposes, I feel like that ship has unfortunately already sailed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Yeah, I've heard a lot about that. The only real problem with it seems to be the lack of informed consent. Now that her descendants won compensation for that, they're continuing to allow her cells to be used for research.

https://apnews.com/article/henriett...r-scientific-bfba4a6c10396efa34c9b79a544f0729
​

 

[skillissue]

I feel really scared. Do the majority not feel scared? Why are they that way on X and Reddit? I had come to terms with the harm I’m involved in, more or less. “I’m afraid of no man” kind of thing. But this decade. It scares me. People keep turning up and dumping crates at the check-in desk, labelled for the hold. How much do they weigh? Do I just insist they’re empty, or feathers? Why does each crate look progressively more passenger shaped? They’re all labelled for the hold, but I’m scared.

 

[bit_user]

I feel really scared. Do the majority not feel scared?

AI is a real concern. Not because a human-like AI superintelligence could wipe us out tomorrow, but more that AI can lead to large-scale job losses and puts more powerful tools in the hands of bad guys and authoritarian governments.

There's also the "virus" scenario, surrounding AI. A virus is a very simple thing, compared to multi-cellular organisms. However, the success of viruses at decimating populations of plants and animals shows that it doesn't require a very complex thing to pose a real threat.

An example of this AI "virus" phenomenon is something like a feedback loop involving a generative AI with internet access, where it's instructed to act as it believes a malicious AI would do. A sufficiently capable model could probably manage to propagate itself and perhaps even make improvements to itself, even though it's not truly self-aware. If that's allowed to continue, it could eventually "evolve" into a threat we can no longer contain. At that point, it still might not be truly self-aware, but it doesn't need to be - it only needs to have the ability and knowledge to behave like a paranoid AI super intelligence.

By contrast, these brain organoids do not worry me. Not one bit, if you actually have a decent foundational understanding of AI.