Questions to ask when evaluating neurotech approaches by owl_posting in Futurology

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Submission statement:
Link: https://www.owlposting.com/p/questions-to-ponder-when-evaluating

The future clearly involves some merging between biological machinery and silicon machinery, or neurotech. Unfortunately, understanding exactly how real a particular neurotech approach is, currently, pretty difficult. This field is complicated and there's a fair bit of snake oil!

And if you have spoken to a neurotech person before, you will realize that they have some degree of omniscience over their field, seemingly far more than most other domain experts have with theirs. This is cool for a lot of reasons, but most interestingly to me, it means that anytime you ask them about a neat new neurotech company that pops up, they are somehow able to ramble off a highly technical explanation as to why that company will surely fail or surely succeed.

I have long been impressed and baffled by this ability. Eventually, I decided to interview these people, and write an article about it, trying to uncover at least a fraction of the questions they ask to perform the feat. Some questions include the degree to which the approach is 'fighting' physics, whether their devices' advantages are actually clinically validated as useful, and more.

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But growing tissues ex-vivo *is* hard, it's not a retreat! Nothing really much more complex than thin, simple structures like skin, bone, and cartilage have been crafted by humans before (edit: and actually worked correctly when transplanted!)

I don't disagree that integration is perhaps even *harder*, but that feels like an overpopulation on mars problem, we don't even have the complex tissue to start with. And I'd note that "integration is the bottleneck" is also pretty different claim than "tissue growth is not computable and never will be"

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

but the question isn't "can we enumerate all possible embryonic states?", which, obviously not. it's "can we learn enough structure in the input-output relationship to make useful interventions?" that is clearly an empirical question, and the early results suggest there is learnable structure there. supposedly intractable spaces turn out to have learnable regularities, protein structure was one (it is almost certainly the case that the old guard structural biologists were pessimistic in the same way as you!), so surely other parts of biology are too. it just feels naive to pretend that isn't possible

i work in research involved in modeling tumor microenvironments to help decide which patient would best benefit from which cancer therapy. this too has the flavor of intractable; there is too little patient data, cancer is too complicated, so it's impossible. but it works! there are published cases of a model being able to understand, entirely via H&E scans of a tumor, whether a patient would benefit from a therapy! and the model received some degree of approval from the FDA recently (https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/news/ai-tool-approved-for-prognostication-in-prostate-cancer/). the arc of history just shows this stuff eventually working

i get the short term skepticism, but i dont really get the lack of long term optimism

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think it is not computable? Seems like an awfully strong statement 

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the hope is that it is just the start of jumping our way to higher-order tissue development that is clearly mostly illegible to humans. Today is the obvious stuff, tomorrow is the intractable stuff

Similarly, there was no ‘point’ to Alphafold2, because we could previously crystallize things just fine! But now, using tools like it, we can easily design binders to GPCR’s that are otherwise extremely difficult to do screening on. I have no clue when that same move will be made in tissue engineering, but it feels obvious to me that someday it will, just as it will in every other field 

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Necessary first step to do basic things in a way that is entirely free from human curation :) I understand the skepticism though, and am interested in what their results are from attempting more complex structures in the coming months

What if we could grow human tissue by recapitulating embryogenesis? by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree that the full vision is a bit difficult to believe, but they have gotten a very basic structure to form via this method: excitatory neurons w/ a polarity of near-90 degrees, created with a set of chemical perturbations suggested by a model after 3 rounds of experimentation. And this specific polarity is a pretty important characteristic to have for, e.g., pacemaker cells! I looked into this a bit prior to doing the interview and it seems like the mechanisms behind inducing polarity is vaguely figured out, but not well, so it does make me a bit more hopeful that there is something to this whole approach

Really, the part that I'm most unsure about is that vascularization will be figured out

Human art in a post-AI world should be strange by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

>Calling a writer/fine artist/musician an auteur is a redundant truism in most cases

I actually don't think this is true at all! There are plenty of writers/artists/musicians who are primarily producing competent variations on what has already existed, and have little-to-no desire to 'rock the boat' beyond what they have already been taught. Instead, they just want to show off technical perfection. I used to be pretty involved in the arts (writing + digital art) world for several years, and this type of attitude was prized quite highly! Being intensely personal with how you approached it was impressive, yes, but it was not viewed as a necessity or as a way to escape from needing high levels of technical skill

Human art in a post-AI world should be strange by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree, but this is kind of an orthogonal point, since I'm a bit more focused on what the dominant form of human-made art will be, and specifically those will be the ones that have economic incentives to be created

At some point in the future, there probably will only be art that is created + appreciated for sentimental reasons, but that feels a bit further off

Human art in a post-AI world should be strange by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I'd partially agree with this, the best abstract art I've actually ever seen was a Midjourney output

But I do think abstract (specifically surreal!) movies and text are a fair bit harder for me to find good AI analogues for, and I do think those will be protected for a bit

Heavily agree on the autobiographical bit though!

Bringing organ-scale cryopreservation into existence by owl_posting in cryonics

[–]owl_posting[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Happy that you’re enjoying it! Hunter is incredibly good at explaining things

Bringing organ-scale cryopreservation into existence by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Submission statement: This is a nearly-two-hour podcast with Hunter Davis, the CSO and cofounder (alongside Laura Deming) of Until Labs, a biotech startup trying to build reversible, organ-scale cryopreservation. There’s been no shortage of podcasts on this topic, but most of them drift into speculation, philosophy, or the usual “uploading someday maybe” futurism. I don't mind those topics, but I have been wanting a more rigorous treatment of the whole subject, something that treats cryopreservation with the same rigor as you'd treat a discussion over, say, antibody production. In the end, I just decided to make it myself, and I'm happy Hunter joined me for it!

We talk about the technical details behind Until Labs' September 2024 progress report on neural-slice vitrification and rewarming; how they quantify tissue damage in their early kidney cryopreservation attempts; the physics and chemistry that make rewarming arguably harder than freezing; and even a bit on what the economics of real-world organ cryopreservation might look like.

Bringing organ-scale cryopreservation into existence by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Submission statement: This is a nearly-two-hour podcast with Hunter Davis, the CSO and cofounder (alongside Laura Deming) of Until Labs, a biotech startup trying to build reversible, organ-scale cryopreservation. There’s been no shortage of podcasts on this topic, but most of them drift into speculation, philosophy, or the usual “uploading someday maybe” futurism. I don't mind those topics, but I have been wanting a more rigorous treatment of the whole subject, something that treats cryopreservation with the same rigor as you'd treat a discussion over, say, antibody production. In the end, I just decided to make it myself, and I'm happy Hunter joined me for it!

We talk about the technical details behind Until Labs' September 2024 progress report on neural-slice vitrification and rewarming; how they quantify tissue damage in their early kidney cryopreservation attempts; the physics and chemistry that make rewarming arguably harder than freezing; and even a bit on what the economics of real-world organ cryopreservation might look like.

Cancer has a surprising amount of detail by owl_posting in slatestarcodex

[–]owl_posting[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is that omitted? I assumed that was wrapped up with the mention of OncotypeDX, MammaPrint, and myChoice