Maybe I missed it but my ultimate pet peeve of these articles about scientific breakthroughs is that they neither credit a single name of a scientist in their article nor even just putting a single link to the work. I know its likely behind a paywall (darn you scientific publishing), but still!
I browsed a bit through Nature Communications and haven’t seen the article…
They did name someone. Googling his name returns this, which I assume is the right paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46787-7
more like darn you current interpretation of capitalism for forcing all of us to keep us hungry for profit in order to survive
surely there is a better economic model right?
Journalists barely cite anything. “A study from this organisation says this.” Don’t tell you when it was published, or link to the official website. Nada.
Journalists are pretty trash at citing their sources on average. I think it’s wild most countries don’t seem to regulate this. It would do wonders for archives of news content so that you can actually follow up on the story to it’s source.
Credit goes to University of Tokyo’s Dr Yoshiho Ikeuchi and colleagues.
Now I wait for some internet strangers to tell me why is this not groundbreaking at all
Next up: OI, Organic Intelligence
I was always curious about those. Surely they can’t be faster than computers right? I mean, whatever computers they have in the 24th century.
No possible way for this to be turned evil. Lab grown brains? Definitely could never be evil.
Should science cease to exist because most discoveries could be used for evil?
Imagine some future generations of CPUs, GPUs or APUs having little brain matter processors on them.
