Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03229-y

by rogerian • 4 years ago

229 135 4 years ago

superkuh• 4 years ago

This is about 40x more cells than they used to fly a fighter jet in a simulation back in 2004. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1572 .

I suppose the claim to fame in this similar study is the use of the title organoid and there's some legitimacy to that. Form and function are intimately tied in the brain and just a bunch of neurons on a petri dish isn't quite an organ.

thrown_222• 4 years ago

(Discovery Channel, USA, 22 October 2004)

That's a bit like saying battle bots solved locomotion of robots.

sillysaurusx3• 4 years ago

Gosh, that study. It was the first time my faith in academia was severely shaken. As a 19yo, I spent around 6 hours reverse engineering what was going on, and then fell into a spiral of “Is this what academia is all about? Really?” Because I was so fascinated by the concept, then it was such a letdown…

It took some time to appreciate that there are some worthwhile ideas in that paper. But it was my first experience with “Academic lies about accomplishment to secure further funding.”

It’s hard to say whether “lie” or “severely exaggerate” is appropriate.

A method existed to measure a signal from a neuron. A second method existed to modify that signal. Whenever the plane crashed, the signal was modified slightly, until the plane flew level.

It didn’t learn to fly. The researcher modified a neuron (steady signal) until it gave the appropriate signal (e.g. zero) to fly level.

Negative signal, plane banks left. Positive signal, plane banks right. If plane crashes, modify neuron until signal is neither positive nor negative. That was the extent of the study.

In that context, do you feel like the neurons learned to fly? Maybe. It’s certainly similar in spirit to reinforcement learning in modern times. But I wouldn’t say that setting a signal to zero is a nice definition of “flew a plane”.

In other words, there was no active feedback; if you pointed the plane in a slightly different direction, it would immediately crash. It wasn’t doing anything more than setting the signal slowly over time to an answer that was known ahead of time. (Keep the plane level by not moving the controls.)

Suppose the neurons learned to draw a straight line. That was essentially what was being demonstrated here. If you substitute “plane crash” with “line becomes a curve”, it becomes much less exciting, to say the least.

“Isn’t that just learning to set a signal to a constant value?” “Yep” “Will it always become the same constant?” “Yep” “Can’t we already do that?” “Yep”

I was so disillusioned that it took many years to stop believing that academia itself was at fault for misinforming the public so badly. After all, it’s almost two decades later, and people still believe “rat brain flies plane” happened in 2004.

If I could go back in time, I’d tell myself not to worry about it; focus on the academics that are working quietly on the frontier, not the ones trying to raise funding for their lab.

At least the neurons in today’s study actually learned to play something. But if the past is any indication, I’d err on the side of skepticism.

thrown_222• 4 years ago

Do you know the actual study which did this?

Because the Nature citation on where the work was done is literally "The Discovery Channel".

seydor3• 4 years ago

i would urge people to read the paper instead. The 'learning' is a bit iffy , and this was meant to test the brain theory of Friston rather than plug neurons into pong. Still, great job on the neurotechnology involved and a step in the direction where we should be going, controlling large numbers of neurons

Ars Technica has a better article, although they dont describe the dense electode array correctly: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/a-dish-of-neurons-ma...

austinjp11• 4 years ago

Genuine question: why "should" we be going in this direction?

serf• 4 years ago

post-apocalyptic horrible scenarios aside, there are plenty of therapeutic reasons why it would be nice to have neuron-level control of brain tissue.

rongopo3• 4 years ago

Is curiosity a good answer for you? For me it is.

seydor3• 4 years ago

because it's bottom-up, as opposed to mouse studies that impose our own ideas and record from a tiny fraction of brain cells

EricMausler2• 4 years ago

To fight neurodegenerative diseases

moffkalast2• 4 years ago

Because we can, and if we don't someone less ethical will.

eli_gottlieb2• 4 years ago

We do what we must, because we can.

nier• 4 years ago

For those who like me are wondering where those neurons come from. An answer can be found in the Ars Technica article:

“[...] the researchers tested two types of neurons: some dissected from mouse embryos, and others produced by inducing human stem cells to form neurons. ”

dillondoyle4• 4 years ago

Finally a sliver of future I'm psyched about. Induce stem cells to form neurons? Next step induce new neurons to form new connections in existing brain!?

sidewndr46• 4 years ago

A question for someone who understands the neurology and biology of this much more than I do:

Once I have a group of neurons like this trained to do something, can I actually count on them to continue performing that task until they die? Or is it possible they spontaneously reorganize or "learn" a previously unseen behavioral pattern?

amelius2• 4 years ago

I guess they can become tired also, just like humans. (Not a biologist)

jerojero• 4 years ago

Hm. That's a very good question. I haven't kept up with neurobiology research but I imagine as long as the same neurons keep their connections to the same other neurons then it would be possible for them to keep performing the task. And neurons will do keep these connections if the stimuli was strong enough and showed up repeatedly.

But when the task is not required for a very long time the circuit that turns this task on will weaken, at least in the brain. And neurons will be forming other connections, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily "forget" about older ones.

9wzYQbTYsAIc2• 4 years ago

Here is a journal article that might be relevant for you:

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)01362-2

Abstract: ”Neuronal plasticity in the brain is greatly enhanced during critical periods early in life and was long thought to be rather limited thereafter. Studies in primary sensory areas of the neocortex have revealed a substantial degree of plasticity in the mature brain, too. Often, plasticity in the adult neocortex lies dormant but can be reactivated by modifications of sensory input or sensory-motor interactions, which alter the level and pattern of activity in cortical circuits. Such interventions, potentially in combination with drugs targeting molecular brakes on plasticity present in the adult brain, might help recovery of function in the injured or diseased brain.”

sally_glance• 4 years ago

Disclaimer: Also not a neurologist.

I believe they certainly will reorganize in case of a (local nutrient) scarcity or damage event. That might result in "unseen" patterns as well, and by "unseen" I mean kinda random.

9wzYQbTYsAIc2• 4 years ago

Glial cells are fascinating components of the brain.

Artificial NeuroGlial Networks could be really interesting.

austinjp11• 4 years ago

They're biological. A lot can happen :) Remember this includes weirdness like viruses, tumors, aging... as well as specifically neural stuff like habituation (diminished sensitivity to repeated stimulation), sensitisation (increased sensitivity to repeated stimulation), spontaneous misfiring, reorganisation (basically creating/destroying or upweighting/downweighting synapses) etc etc etc.

Of course, then you'll need to debug problems by dripping antidepressants (or psychedelics, or stimulants, or depressants, or various hormones, or....) into the Petri dish.

Biology is wonderfully crazy.

donny2018• 4 years ago

TIL I’m somewhat of a Petri dish myself.

noduerme2• 4 years ago

Skip the SSRIs and let them loose on Red Dead 2. In a couple weeks they'll be talking to a horse in ways we never imagined.

simonh• 4 years ago

“Did you send your computer in for repair?”

“No, therapy.”

x86x87• 4 years ago

So the short answer is no

lvass3• 4 years ago

A related question: can I indefinitely test they're performing their task correctly? When operating these neurons for actual tasks, real time challenge-response-like testing is probably a good idea. But if they can learn, eventually they may be able to trick the tests. How would one design automated tests to evaluate the state of learning-capable systems?

toxicFork• 4 years ago

Welcome to the field of QA automation

jamiek88• 4 years ago

How would one design automated tests to evaluate the state of learning-capable systems?

A question many call center managers ask themselves.

noduerme2• 4 years ago

The nightmare of AI is it's a black box. The nightmare of people is that they're people. (or, per Sartre, "hell is other people" ... but that's such a freighted human perspective).

Gee if only we could grow meat to eat in a lab and grow brains on substrate to answer phone calls and generate images, we could do away with the complexity of other humans we might have to interact with. Except... you have even less understanding of what motivates that clump of cells than you do what motivates your office secretary.

Don't get me wrong, it's a super cool idea. I'm just not sure exactly when bioethics went completely out the window.

amelius2• 4 years ago

What's more, you can apply evolution to your Petri dish.

yrgulation• 4 years ago

Proper ai.

sabertoothed• 4 years ago

N.I.

ALittleLight4• 4 years ago

They are using human neurons for this? The one substrate we can be sure of is capable of producing consciousness?

djmips• 4 years ago

Interesting question!

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02986-y

ALittleLight4• 4 years ago

This seems like a research area so horrific it could exist only in a comic book. This type of thing should not be funded or researched. I'm surprised it needs to be said but we shouldn't grow human brains to experiment on them. Maybe if we could understand and quantify consciousness and be sure we weren't subjecting something to hell - but certainly not while we can't do that.

p1necone• 4 years ago

Yeah this makes me really uncomfortable. We have no idea really what causes consciousness to arise, but "enough actual animal/human neurons to perform complex tasks" doesn't seem like an unlikely way to do it to me.

"Unimaginable suffering in a petri dish" is not something I want even a tiny chance of creating.

wruza4• 4 years ago

To evaluate these chances, one has to understand what “suffering” is. It may (or may not) be purely evolutional thing which cannot be easily reproduced in a dish. Perhaps the whole thing is a plague that only emerges in/for natural-life conditions. While the configuration space is likely(?) almost infinite, the natural selector is only one.

jll29• 4 years ago

As a researcher in responsible AI, I wonder what they told their ethics committee, if anything.

eli_gottlieb2• 4 years ago

Given that they took skin cells, cultured them to pluripotent stem cells, then convinced the stem cells to grow neurons, I don't think they grew an interoceptive cortex, basal ganglia, or other brain areas necessary for emotional experience as we know it. "Exhibit sentience" is... well, let's call it a wordplay.

UncleOxidant• 4 years ago

"Hundreds of thousands of human neurons growing in a dish"

It seems doubtful that hundreds of thousands of human neurons would lead to consciousness.

"Although the company calls its system DishBrain, the neurons are a far cry from an actual brain, Kagan says, and show no signs of consciousness."

...then again, would they be able to tell? There's not a lot of I/O in this situation.

ALittleLight4• 4 years ago

I agree that low numbers of neurons are unlikely to lead to human-level consciousness. I have zero faith that researchers in this area won't continue to push the limits - perhaps even if they don't publish on doing so.

I see this research as a red flag "hey, we are approaching something very bad" and while the flag itself may not be a problem we should heed the warning and change direction.

All this said, my understanding is that this research is in part inspired by or associated with the phenomenon of people with encephalopathy who have greatly diminished brain volumes but are still conscious. This says to me we can't reliably predict how many neurons are necessary before creating consciousness.

austinjp11• 4 years ago

Indeed. Although the lab couldn't check for signs of consciousness. If they'd been able to do so, they'd have cracked the "hard problem" of consciousness, which would be far bigger news. So this is blather at best, and ethics-washing at worst.

tsol2• 4 years ago

You can monitor brain activity. Hard to be conscious if there is no activity in the cells.

sva_2• 4 years ago

The one substrate we can be sure of is capable of producing consciousness?

How can you be sure that anyone other than you is conscious? Why shouldn't animals be conscious?

tshaddox• 4 years ago

How can you be sure that anyone other than you is conscious?

That doesn't seem like a more or less difficult question than asking how I can be sure that human neurons are the substrate responsible for producing consciousness. If it turns out that the other humans I observe only seem like they're conscious, then it could also turn out that my neurons only seem to be the substrate producing my consciousness. Of course, this is just terrible epistemology.

stagas• 4 years ago

Yes imagine a life where you play pong for orgasms.

whaaswijk• 4 years ago

I hope you’re joking because that actually sounds like a terribly impoverished life for a human consciousness.

ruined• 4 years ago

hell is real

ofou• 4 years ago

It's interesting to see research like this coming up. It might inform AI in unpredicted ways IMO.

"In vitro neurons learn and exhibit sentience when embodied in a simulated game-world".

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662732...

_spduchamp• 4 years ago

DishBrain is better for marketing than DishNightmares.

im3w1l• 4 years ago

So we can create microbrains of human neurons. Cool. But what about a gigabrain? Something smarter than all of us?

For the record I do think such a creation should have personhood. And have the right to learn about and interact with the real world.

grepfru_it• 4 years ago

Here's an article that's almost 20 years old on a similar topic

https://web.archive.org/web/20041023144731/https://www.wired...

https://web.archive.org/web/20041106064802/http://www.napa.u...

EDIT: it seems the researcher working on this project passed away recently :(

yazzku• 4 years ago

Funny how everybody here panics about 'the hell' of experimenting with human brains that could possibly grow consciousness. What about the actual hell we put animals through so that we can eat them? There are also studies suggesting that, for example, crows and other animals have some form of consciousness:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/crows-consciousne...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/do-crows-possess-f...

You don't need to imagine hell, it's already here.

jjtheblunt• 4 years ago

If there are extraterrestrials, "Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong" is probably the sort of thing they say while watching us from their UFOs.

velcrovan• 4 years ago

I tend to think that if there are extraterrestrials, they probably look a lot more like neurons in a dish than like us.

davisr• 4 years ago

Probably. http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_g/G04/Unidentified/full/GT...

odrekf• 4 years ago

I tried to reply to someone but he got censored for pointing out that if you care about two neurons you should care about the animals that go through hell in the meat/dairy industry. Here's my reply:

One can't hope to truly know if another individual (be it a human or any other animal) is conscious (the hard problem of consciousness). But if it has eyes like us, mouth like us, plays like us, cries/screams when hurt like us, and even seem to dream like us (asleep dogs sometimes move like they are running in their dreams, and when they wake up they look confused and still perturbed from what they were seeing in their minds), it makes perfect sense to assume that they are conscious like us, and it's the ethical thing to do.

hirundo• 4 years ago

If you apply the same standard within our own species you would be accused of xenophobia. Why should it be different across species?

melagonster2• 4 years ago

if all species are same, what's different between vegetables and animals? or even COVID-19 virus and bacteria?

ummonk• 4 years ago

It seems needlessly provocative to use human neurons to do this. Presumably they could have had the same effects with neurons from another species. It’s like they want to provoke a backlash from religious people against scientific experimentation.

_mhr_• 4 years ago

They compared human cells to mouse cells, showing improved performance for the human cells.

drawingthesun• 4 years ago

It's not needlessly provocative human neurons have shown in almost every study to be superior to all other animal neurons.

Let the backlash happen and as a society let's put a stop to letting religious idiocy get in the way of science.

There is an entire field of study for ethical science and I stand behind that 100%.

Unethical science can get lost!

I'm not a progress at any costs type of person.

But is this actually unethical or just something a religious idiot doesn't like?

lvass3• 4 years ago

Only religious idiots would prefer a "normal" life over having human-brained gorilla chimeras do all the work and just consuming psychotropics all day, right?

TedDoesntTalk• 4 years ago

human neurons have shown in almost every study to be superior

Until recently I thought a neuron is a neuron is a neuron. How are they different between species?

obscur• 4 years ago

I would like a source for the first claim. When I read the preprint for this paper half a year ago it was actually one of their claims that to the best of their knowledge their Pong experiment was the first to show human neurons being ‘better’.

seydor3• 4 years ago

technically they used human skin cells, which they induced to be pluripotent, which then became neurons

tsol2• 4 years ago

Are there actually any religious people against this? In general I haven't heard of groups that are against culturing human cells

drdeca3• 4 years ago

Well, seydor's comment that they actually used induced pluripotent cells derived from skin cells, rather than stem cells from fetuses, makes me feel better about it.

I'm of course not against, in general, "culturing human cells", but I have moral uncertainty/concern about those derived from fetuses, as well as any large quantities (in one group) of human neuron cells (or, also, but to a lesser degree, large quantities in one group of other kinds of nerve cells).

That's not to say that I would be confident that what was done would be wrong if they were using cells derived from fetuses, but, I would think it more likely that there would be a moral problem with it. (And this feeling/belief/concern is in part due to religious belief.)

(I can imagine someone saying "But seeing as induced pluripotent stem cells seem to behave in effectively the same ways as 'actual stem cells', how do you know that whatever moral problems you think would be present if using 'actual stem cells', don't also apply to the induced pluripotent cells?" And to that imaginary interlocutor, I must admit that thay have somewhat of a point, in that I suppose I can't entirely rule that out, but, my intuition, which unfortunately is most of what I have to go on because we have not been granted a book detailing precisely every last detail of the metaphysics of personhood etc. , suggests to me that it seems substantially less likely to be a problem.

Even if it might theoretically be possible to use induced pluripotent cells to form a fetus which could develop into a full child which would be a person,

(is this thought to be theoretically possible? I mean, outside of something as general purpose as arbitrarily rearranging the atoms, or using cells from an outside source, and just moving induced pluripotent cells around while treating them with various chemicals and nutrients, is it thought that in theory this could produce a viable fetus?)

it still feels reasonably unlikely that without actually starting to do that, and only converting what type of cells some skin cells are, that this would constitute creating something with any moral patienthood. One such reason being that, I would think, there wouldn't be a clear distinction of how many such entities would have been created. Would it be one moral patient per cell? That seems implausible, especially assuming that multiple such cells would need to be used together to create a viable fetus. One might point out then that identical twins can arise from one zygote by the group of cells that the zygote becomes splitting into two parts, and so if moral patienthood is incompatible with ambiguity-of-number, then this should also apply to blastocyst or whatever. And, perhaps? Though, in that case, there is still the clear differentiation of "these came from this zygote", so perhaps there could be some reason there.

Again, my position is one of uncertainty about these questions, and associated concern. My position is not that I know for certain that it is less morally problematic to use induced pluripotent stem cells than it is to use stem cells derived e.g. directly from a blastocyst, but that it seems substantially less likely to me that using induced pluripotent cells is a problem than it is that using stem cells from a blastocyst is a problem, though neither is certain.)

theflyingelvis• 4 years ago

Maybe they could run for senate in my home state

crakenzak• 4 years ago

Depends on how quickly the neurons can learn to be incompetent and waste tax payer money, only then will they have a real chance ;)

IIAOPSW2• 4 years ago

Hmm. Assuming we could feed in the sort of indicators and summary statistics that already form the way nation-states see reality, we could attach a literal brain to the organs of the state!

dillondoyle4• 4 years ago

Avenue 5 (under rated show) has President 2.0! An AI who is far more competent. Or more like able to make tough decisions without human backlash.

GolfPopper2• 4 years ago

SF author (and marine biologist) Peter Watts described something very much like this, only more advanced, in his book Maelstrom (2001):

"Achilles Desjardins had always found smart gels a bit creepy. People thought of them as brains in boxes, but they weren't. They didn't have the parts. Forget about the neocortex or the cerebellum—these things had nothing. No hypothalamus, no pineal gland, no sheathing of mammal over reptile over fish. No instincts. No desires. Just a porridge of cultured neurons, really: four-digit IQs that didn't give a rat's ass whether they even lived or died. Somehow they learned through operant conditioning, although they lacked the capacity either to enjoy reward or suffer punishment. Their pathways formed and dissolved with all the colorless indifference of water shaping a river delta."

Much of his work, including Maelstrom, is freely available on his own website:https://rifters.com/real/shorts.htm

narrator• 4 years ago

Another great novel about emergent intelligence was Blood Music by Greg Bear. A microorganism develops swarm intelligence.

jbaber• 4 years ago

I thought you were going to say Starfish by Watts, which also features smart gels.

GolfPopper2• 4 years ago

Malestrom is the second book in the trilogy (or quadrology - the 4th book was split in two in some printings).

I didn't have a copy of Starfish handy, and I wasn't sure if gels had been mentioned there or not.

lvass3• 4 years ago

Do we have an open source PetriNeuronSDK to communicate with these yet? I can't wait until we get cloud neurons IaaS.

d--b• 4 years ago

he work is a proof of principle that neurons in a dish can learn and exhibit basic signs of intelligence

Absolutely not. This shows that you can teach neurons to exhibit a reflex behavior adapted to the given stimuli - which shouldn’t come as a surprise. At best this is jellyfish-like level of intelligence.

lern_too_spel3• 4 years ago

Transformers have shown that language development can also be explained by what you derisively call reflex behavior, with no need for specialized Chomskyan recursion circuitry, as the same mechanism with slight modification (decision transformers) also plays Pong.

rryan2• 4 years ago

There's a huge difference between fitting a probabilistic model to a data distribution then sampling from it (what GPT-3 is) and agents that invent language and use it to communicate.

nazgul17• 4 years ago

Every new AI gets demoted pretty quickly. Playing pong would have been once called AI.

bowsamic• 4 years ago

That’s because once we understand it and achieve it it’s no longer considered intelligence. The same will happen when we have actual human robots that are indistinguishable from real humans. People will say “obviously not intelligence or anything related to it, just doing x, y, and z”

mattlondon• 4 years ago

Agreed....but! This opens some interesting thoughts about various things.

Sure this Petri dish is not intelligent and conscious. But it's just a load of neurons right, just like the Petri dish in our head. Are we intelligent and conscious in that case? Or are we just a scaled up Petri dish that reacts to more varied stimuli?

austinjp11• 4 years ago

This leads to a circular problem: if we resist the notion that we're just scaled-up Petri dish brains (perhaps because we "feel conscious") how can we be sure the Petri dish mini-brains are so different from us? In which case, are they conscious after all, to some degree?

tiborsaas2• 4 years ago

Have you seen magic tricks revealed? It's such a let down. After that you can't unsee how it's done and it becomes a regular guy concealing some information. Before that there was a mystery how the heck it was done. It's the same thing going on here, both with AI and the understanding of the wetware mind.

rhn_mk12• 4 years ago

Except with AI and wetware there's still a mystery remaining. Not all cases have a rigorous description of what's going on in the middle level of abstraction.

Low level: proteins/matrices.

Middle level: ???

High level: it thinks!

Manuel_D• 4 years ago

I wonder if in the future we'll have some sort of FPGA formed by a neural dish. Hook up an HDMI port to a cube of neurons and it OCRs text or tracks objects. I suspect biological variations in cells would make the results inconsistent, and far inferior to what we can do with semiconductors presently, but it's cool to think about.

yieldcrv• 4 years ago

Makes me wonder how many states there are in a neuron.

Like, they are similar to transistors but have more states than off (0) and on (1).

janci• 4 years ago

Next step: run Doom

austinjp11• 4 years ago

From the website of the lab doing this https://corticallabs.com

Human neural networks raised in a simulation

The neurons exist inside our Biological Intelligence Operating System (biOS). biOS runs the simulation and sends information about their environment, with positive or negative feedback. It interfaces with the neurons directly. As they react, their impulses affect their digital world.

Our first minds

The dishbrain is currently being developed at the CL0 laboratory in Melbourne, AU. We bring these neurons to life, and integrate them into The biOS with a mixture of hard silicon and soft tissue. Our first cohort have learnt to play Pong. They grow, adapt and learn as we do.

Silicon meets neuron

Neurons are cultivated inside a nutrient rich solution, supplying them everything they need to be happy and healthy. Their physical growth is across a silicon chip, which has a set of pins that send electrical impulses into the neural structure, and receive impulses back in return.

The Ultimate Learning Machine

Those actions have a positive or negative effect in biOS, which the mind perceives, adapting to improve that feedback. The human neuron is self programming, infinitely flexible, the result of four billion years of evolution. What digital models try and emulate, we begin with.

Why?

There are many advantages to organic-digital intelligence. Lower power costs, more intuition, insight and creativity in our intelligences. But most importantly we are driven by three core questions.

What will we discover if our intelligences train themselves?

We know an organic mind is a better learner than any digital model. It can switch tasks easily, and bring learnings from one task to another. But more important is what we don’t know. What are the limits of a mind connected to infinity? What can it do with data it literally lives in?

What happens if we take a shortcut to generalised intelligence?

Machine Learning algorithms are a poor copy of the way an organic neural network functions. So we’re starting with the neuron, replacing decades of algorithms with millions of years of evolution. What happens as these native intelligences start solving the problems we’d previously left to software?

How can we surpass the limits of silicon?

Silicon is raw, rigid, unchanging. Our organic neural networks sit on top of this raw power, but the way they grow and evolve isn’t limited to the software they run on. There is no software, it's coded in their DNA. How will computing change as we shift from hard silicon to soft tissue?

RFN: Request For Neurons

The dishbrain is learning and growing in biOS today, and soon we’re opening an early access preview for selected developers. The biOS is our simulation environment, where you can program tasks, challenges and objectives for our minds. Join our developer program to get early access to our SDK, and secure training time with our minds.

m3kw9• 4 years ago

Wonder then they can plug in a camera and output the visual from the brain from recall. And would that be called consciousness?

norwalkbear• 4 years ago

They also grew eye like structures too right.

Neurons in a dish learn to play Pong

Related Stories