The Age of Cyborgs

Forget AI – Let’s Worry about OI

Artificial Intelligence is so … passé. 

Even as the world was loudly reacting to the achievements of Chat-GPT, some experts were quietly suggesting that we may be nearing the limits of not only large language models, but even silicon-based computers in general. The physical structures that computers are currently made of put a floor on how small a computer can be and how quickly it can process data. Even the best computers can only process certain types of complex information at a tiny fraction of the speed at which human brains operate. Although they can do some specialized tasks better than the human brain, computers achieve their results by raw, electronic data processing; language models require far more data input than a human brain needs to produce comparable results, and they are far less adaptable and far less energy efficient.  

There is an obvious solution. If human brains are so much better than anything we can manufacture, why not just use human brains in our computers? If a brain, or a piece of a brain, could survive and develop apart from a living organism, you could theoretically integrate it with a computer system. If nervous systems are the most advanced computers in the universe, why reinvent the wheel? Thus, some researchers have concluded that the future of robotics and computing is not artificial intelligence, but non-artificial intelligence—biological computing. 

Organoid Technology  

The cutting edge of biological computing is Organoid Intelligence (OI). In 2013, a group of scientists discovered how to coax human stem cells to differentiate into neurons and organize themselves into a little structure resembling a miniature brain, which they named a “brain organoid.” Researchers in the field are now working on learning how to guide these organoids to develop further and differentiate into the various regions of the human brain.  

Some researchers have also been trying to integrate these neurological systems with robotic systems. Dr. Alysson Muotri and his lab at the University of California, San Diego, are developing robots controlled by brain organoids. The organoids are grown in petri dishes (Dr. Muotri has been making brain organoids by hand in the lab, but he says he wants to figure out how to mass produce them—to create a brain farm, basically) and connected to a spider-like robot, which walks at different speeds depending on the signals that come from the organoid. The robot also communicates back; when its sensors indicate it has reached a wall, it sends a signal to the organoid.  

The hope is that the feedback from the robotic body will stimulate development in the organoid, much as the brains of living things learn and develop on the basis of stimuli from our organic bodies. Again, it’s a matter of not reinventing the wheel; if stems cells in the context of a human body develop naturally into a complex thinking-system, why not figure out how to get them to do it in a robotic body? This is difficult, but presumably much easier than making a brain yourself piece by piece. Why reinvent the brain, if you can convince the brain to reinvent itself?    

Now, if this OI technology took off, it would not necessarily come in the form of robots walking around with biological brains. It could be more subtle. Neurons could become a ubiquitous component of information technology. Some scientists even envision a future in which everyday technology like cellphones have neurons inside them. And why not? Why shouldn’t we have human nerves pulsing away in our mobiles?  

Cyborg PR 

Of course, this takes us into a morally and philosophically foggy area. If human neurons are in a computer, how can you be sure that it is merely an imitation of a mind? How many neurons in a computer would make it an actual living thing? And how could we tell? How could we ever know if such a hybrid were conscious or not? 

Some people are already concerned by what Dr. Muotri is doing. The New York Times quotes Christof Koch, the chief scientist of the Allen Brain Institute: “The closer we come to his goal, the more likely we will get a brain that is capable of sentience and of feeling pain, agony and distress.”  

Others say that we really have no idea what we’re getting into. “In order to say what you should do with it, you first have to say, ‘What is it?’” Harvard bioethicist Jeantine Lunshof says. “We’re making things that were not known 10 years ago. They were not in the catalog of philosophers.”  

Dr. Muotri realizes that his work may put him in some morally gray zones, so he’s been consulting with ethicists for guidance on what to do and not do—and how to present his research in a way that won’t cause an uproar. Apparently, the experts Muotri found aren’t too concerned. 

“They are less worried than I would imagine,” Dr. Muotri said, as quoted in Discover magazine. “I would have thought that the public would have a different perception — that these are live, organic networks that are now connected to machines and might dominate the world. But they think that the public will not see that. And I’m unsure. I don’t know.”  

Still, on a recent panel, the scientist was advised to “watch his vocabulary.” 

“I’ll definitely change ‘brain farms’ to something else,” Dr. Muotri said.  

Further Reading

• Denyse O’Leary, “AI Apprehension” 
• Denyse O’Leary, “It Comes Naturally” 
• Robert J. Marks, “Cannot Compute”  
• Daniel Witt, “Dr. Frankenstein’s Students”  
• Joe Allen, "What’s It Like To Be A Blob Of Brain?"