[auastro]

> “the brain is the single existing example of general intelligence,” that’s true of the whole thing, with glial ion buffering, ephaptic coupling, global oscillations, and so much more. We should be honest here: the system being studied in DishBrain is very far removed from that, so it’s tough to use the existence proof like you are doing.

Our vision is incredibly ambitious. We can't build a whole brain yet, only small 2D fragments. We have a roadmap that goes all the way to a complete synthetic biological intelligence. The short and medium term milestones are concrete, achievable and valuable. The long term goals are more speculative, we're clear about that. It's a path, a tightrope, but still a path.

> [...] but you guys alienated a lot of people both in how you talked about “sentience” and also seemed to heavily hype this as totally novel.

We clearly defined our terms, our paper was accepted via a long peer review process into a prestigious academic journal. We coauthored with multiple top neuroscientists from around the world. Our discussion section alone has more citations than most entire papers. If scientists are "alienated" by this, it's a grievance that we cannot remedy.

Our work was hyped, we hyped it, it deserves to be hyped. Can you cite an example in our own words where we claim our work is totally novel?

> I tried to ignore it but the bad faith attack on neuralink, which, look, I have complicated feelings about too — you should know the animal use data in the press is extremely out of context (to the point of simply being wrong) and also neuralink has had zero chimpanzees in its entire history.

Please accept my apologies; it was meant to be more collaborative. I really do think that our system could be used to reduce the need for animal sacrifices and this is a good thing. I also believe you take making animal sacrifices seriously.