What Have They Done?

AI Made From Human Blood?

AI Made From HUMAN BLOOD! #RichieFromBoston

In a groundbreaking development, Australian startup Cortical Labs has introduced the world's first commercial "biological computer" powered by living human brain cells. This innovation, known as the CL1 system, merges lab-grown neurons with silicon hardware to create a dynamic and energy-efficient artificial intelligence platform.

The CL1 system operates by cultivating human neurons on a silicon chip, forming a neural network capable of learning and adapting in real-time. These neurons are maintained in a controlled environment that provides necessary nutrients and stimuli, allowing them to function similarly to a human brain. The integration of biological cells with electronic circuits enables the system to process information more efficiently than traditional silicon-based AI models.

One of the notable features of the CL1 is its "Wetware-as-a-Service" model, which allows researchers and developers to access the biological computing platform remotely via the cloud. This approach democratizes access to advanced AI capabilities, potentially accelerating research in neuroscience, medicine, and machine learning.

The development of the CL1 system builds upon previous research where Cortical Labs demonstrated that a network of 800,000 human and mouse neurons could learn to play the video game Pong. This earlier project showcased the potential of biological neural networks to perform tasks traditionally handled by digital computers.

While the CL1 represents a significant advancement in AI technology, it also raises ethical considerations. The use of human brain cells in computing prompts questions about consciousness, consent, and the moral implications of creating systems that closely mimic human cognitive functions. Cortical Labs acknowledges these concerns and emphasizes the importance of ethical guidelines in the development and application of such technologies.

The development of biological AI systems like Cortical Labs’ CL1 presents exciting breakthroughs, but it also opens a Pandora’s box of challenges and potential dangers that cannot be overlooked. As promising as this technology may be, there are several key concerns—scientific, ethical, logistical, and societal—that critics argue must be seriously considered.

One of the most pressing concerns is the ethical use of human biological material. The CL1 system is built using human neurons, typically derived from stem cells. Even though these cells are sourced legally and ethically under current guidelines, the use of human brain matter in computing begins to blur the line between machines and living entities. As the technology evolves, questions will arise about the dignity and rights of such systems, especially if they become capable of more complex forms of processing or, in extreme cases, self-awareness. The prospect of creating systems that mimic or simulate consciousness—even without being truly conscious—raises uncomfortable comparisons to creating life for utilitarian purposes.

Another major issue is consent. While stem cells can be donated for research, the long-term use of these cells in a platform that may one day be commercialized or deployed globally brings up new questions about whether donors fully understood how their biological material would be used. If a person’s brain cells end up contributing to a commercial AI system, does that individual or their family have any rights to the intellectual property or technology developed from it?

Technologically, biological computing is still in its infancy and lacks stability. Unlike traditional silicon systems that are highly predictable and durable, living tissue is fragile, temperamental, and prone to degradation. Keeping neurons alive and functional requires constant nourishment, sterile environments, and precise stimulation. This makes biological AI less scalable and more expensive than digital systems in the near term. Any fluctuations in temperature, humidity, or chemical composition can interfere with functionality, meaning maintenance costs and failure rates could be high.

Security is another concern. Biological computing platforms may be susceptible to new forms of cyber-biological interference. While digital systems face the threat of malware, the addition of living components adds a layer of biological vulnerability. Could someone theoretically manipulate the neural activity of a system using biochemical agents or targeted stimuli? And if these systems are ever networked or cloud-connected, what happens if they're compromised?

There is also concern about the psychological and cultural impacts of these developments. As machines become more “human-like,” society could begin to attribute more agency or even emotion to these systems than is warranted. This may lead to unrealistic expectations, over trust in AI, or emotional attachment to machines that are still, fundamentally, tools. Some warn this could accelerate social detachment or distort human relationships and values, especially in children and young adults growing up in a world where organic-synthetic hybrids become commonplace.

The military implications of biological AI are equally troubling. Integrating adaptable, semi-autonomous bio-computing into weapons or surveillance systems could usher in a new form of warfare where machines with living components are used to make decisions with life-or-death consequences. Critics argue that merging organic intelligence with machines in the battlefield could open doors to unpredictable behavior, decision-making errors, or moral hazards with no legal precedent.

Lastly, there is the risk of widening inequality. Advanced biological AI will likely remain in the hands of wealthy nations, corporations, and research labs, at least for the foreseeable future. This could deepen the divide between high-tech economies and developing nations, concentrating both economic power and decision-making authority in an increasingly narrow segment of the global population.

In sum, while the CL1 system and others like it may mark a significant leap in AI evolution, they carry with them a host of unresolved dangers. As the field advances, it will require not only scientific innovation but also deep ethical reflection, strong legal oversight, and public engagement to ensure that progress does not come at the cost of our humanity.

Sources:

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

No. This is not Jurassic Park. This is Colossal Biosciences

The DIRE WOLF RESURRECTION

Colossal Biosciences is a biotechnology company based in Dallas, Texas, co-founded in 2021 by entrepreneur Ben Lamm and Harvard geneticist Dr. George Church. The company's mission is to apply advanced genetic engineering techniques to revive extinct species and bolster biodiversity. Utilizing technologies like CRISPR gene editing and cloning, Colossal aims to reintroduce species such as the woolly mammoth, dodo, Tasmanian tiger, and dire wolf into modern ecosystems.

Dire Wolf Project

In a notable achievement, Colossal announced the birth of three dire wolf pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—by editing gray wolf DNA to express traits associated with the extinct dire wolf. These animals are being raised in a secure, 2,000-acre preserve equipped with monitoring systems to ensure their well-being. While the company views this as a step toward restoring lost species, some scientists argue that the resulting animals are genetically modified hybrids rather than true replicas of extinct species.

Woolly Mammoth Project

Colossal's broader projects include efforts to revive the woolly mammoth by integrating mammoth genes into Asian elephant DNA, aiming to produce cold-resistant hybrids by 2028. The company also explores the potential of its technologies to aid in the conservation of endangered species by enhancing genetic diversity and resilience.

Ethical and Ecological Considerations

The company's initiatives have sparked ethical and ecological debates. Critics question the practicality and morality of de-extinction, expressing concerns about animal welfare, ecological impacts, and the diversion of resources from existing conservation efforts. They argue that introducing genetically engineered proxies of extinct species into modern ecosystems—systems that have evolved without those species—could create unforeseen consequences, disrupt existing wildlife populations, and risk repeating mistakes made in earlier conservation failures. Additionally, some bioethicists raise the issue of suffering among surrogate animals used in breeding experiments and the long-term viability of such engineered creatures, especially if they struggle to survive or reproduce in altered environments.

Conservation groups have also expressed frustration that while endangered species continue to face habitat loss, poaching, and climate-related pressures, large sums of money and media attention are being funneled into reviving animals that are long extinct.

The concern is that these headline-grabbing projects might distract from less glamorous but urgently needed conservation programs.

Supporters of Colossal's mission, however, point to the potential of de-extinction science to drive innovation in genetics, ecology, and veterinary science. They suggest that technologies developed through these programs—such as advanced gene editing, artificial wombs, and enhanced genomic understanding—could be used to fortify existing species against extinction threats. In this view, the work being done by Colossal is not merely about bringing back the mammoth or dire wolf but about creating a toolkit for future biodiversity resilience.

Proponents believe that if executed responsibly, these programs could restore lost ecosystems, serve as climate remediation tools, and advance our ability to undo some of the damage caused by industrial-era human expansion.

Colossal Biosciences continues to advance its research and development, positioning itself at the forefront of synthetic biology and conservation science. With plans underway to grow woolly mammoth-elephant hybrids in artificial wombs and dodo-like birds using pigeon DNA, the company’s work is poised to challenge conventional boundaries of species conservation, pushing forward a new era of ecological engineering that is still largely uncharted—and controversial.

Sources:

Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.