This New AI is Made of Living HUMAN BRAIN Cells (Synthetic Biological Intelligence) - Video Insight
This New AI is Made of Living HUMAN BRAIN Cells (Synthetic Biological Intelligence) - Video Insight
AI Revolution
Fullscreen


The cl1 biological computer combines living neurons with silicon, enabling advanced learning, reduced energy consumption, and innovative applications in research and healthcare.

The emergence of synthetic biological intelligence (SBI) through the construction of a biological computer known as the cl1 exemplifies a significant leap in computing technology that combines living human brain cells with traditional silicon hardware. By utilizing induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), these neurobiological systems not only offer a new methodology for data processing and learning but also promise to dramatically enhance various fields such as drug discovery, disease modeling, and robotics. The distinction of the cl1 lies in its operation without needing conventional computers, its energy efficiency comparable to that of a small microwave, and the versatility it presents for personalized medicine, as it allows neurons derived from a patient’s cells to respond to specific treatments. Further, researchers can engage with the cl1 system via a cloud-based platform, allowing global access to what was once a highly specialized technological undertaking, fundamentally changing how experiments concerning cognitive processes and neurological diseases are conducted.


Content rate: A

The content provides a thorough explanation of the groundbreaking technology represented by the cl1 biological computer, offers clear evidence for its claims, and discusses broader implications in healthcare and artificial intelligence. This makes it exceptionally informative and relevant.

biotechnology artificial intelligence neuroscience innovation healthcare

Claims:

Claim: Cortical Labs claims the cl1 can learn and adapt using biological neurons.

Evidence: The cl1 is reported to enhance learning capabilities by rewarding neurons when they correctly respond to stimuli, as evidenced by earlier experiments where neurons learned to play the game Pong.

Counter evidence: However, some experts argue that the extent of learning exhibited by the neurons does not equate to true intelligence, as their responses are primarily conditional and lack higher cognitive functioning.

Claim rating: 8 / 10

Claim: The cl1 uses significantly less power than traditional AI technologies.

Evidence: The video states that the cl1 operates on approximately 850 to 1000 watts for a full rack of units, far less compared to the significant power requirements of large data center technologies used by standard AI models.

Counter evidence: Critics point out that power consumption comparisons may overlook the operational scopes; traditional AI might perform more complex tasks that require extensive processing power, potentially invalidating straightforward comparisons.

Claim rating: 7 / 10

Claim: The cl1 hardware is fully programmable and allows for real-time feedback in experiments.

Evidence: The integration of a bidirectional stimulation and read interface and the availability of a Python API for customization supports the claim that researchers can manipulate the biological network effectively.

Counter evidence: Nonetheless, while programmability is touted, the underlying biological systems may still impose limitations on how customizable or predictable the outputs can be, raising questions about reliability in experimental settings.

Claim rating: 9 / 10

Model version: 0.25 ,chatGPT:gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18

## BS Evaluation **BS Score: 4/10** ### Reasoning and Explanations: 1. **Exaggeration of Capabilities**: The transcript describes a biological computer capable of learning at speeds exceeding any AI chip, which is quite an ambitious claim. While biological systems, like neurons, can indeed be efficient at problem-solving tasks, the assertion that it can outpace all existing AI is more speculative than factual, leading to a modest level of BS. 2. **Market Readiness Claims**: The text claims that these devices are "on the market" and available for purchase. While it is possible that prototypes or early versions may be ready for researchers, general claims about consumer availability may be exaggerated given the complexities involved in such technology. 3. **Potential Applications**: The suggested applications, such as drug discovery and personalized medicine, are legitimate areas of research. However, the level of efficacy and safety of using biologically based computers for these purposes remains to be fully validated and could be overstated in the presentation, creating a moderate degree of uncertainty and hence BS. 4. **Scientific Credibility**: The discussion references scientific concepts like 'induced pluripotent stem cells' and 'cortical networks', which are credible but not fully contextualized for the lay audience. The effectiveness and ethical implications of using human brain cells in technology are still debated, hinting at a potential oversimplification of complex issues, which adds to the BS score. 5. **Implications of Consciousness**: While it mentions that the system is not conscious and does not have awareness, the notion is glossed over, raising ethical and philosophical questions about using human brain cells that deserve more nuanced discussion. This could mislead viewers regarding the actual nature of the technology, contributing further to the BS. 6. **General Tone and Language**: The enthusiastic and sensational tone throughout the transcript makes it feel more like marketing than an objective informative piece, which is a common feature found in content riddled with BS. Terms like "mind-blowing tech" and “revolutionize everything” are commonly associated with promotional material, reducing credibility. ### Conclusion: Overall, while the concept presented is grounded in emerging technology, the hype surrounding it and the lack of nuanced discussion regarding ethical and practical implications adds a level of BS. The score reflects a balance between genuine scientific advancement and the sensationalism typically found in tech marketing.