Sorry to get your hopes up but I was being facetious and provocative. Instead of a glass jar, our horse’s brain is going to live inside of a computer simulation. Nonetheless, I think my argument still holds true.
Neuroscientists scoff at the thought of whole brain simulation. They’re incredulous and as a result they’re unambitious. They want it but they know they can’t have it; they’ve got sour grapes. Despite these bad vibes, they have been working diligently and I think we’re not too far off from making simulations which are genuinely useful.
On a wacky side note, IMO, if we did have a horses brain in a jar, then interacting with it would be the easy part. There have been some really neat advances in how we interact with brains.
We can make neurons light up when they activate, see GCaMP
And here is a video of GCaMP in action:
We can activate synapses with light, see Optogenetics
The hard part would be keeping it alive for its 25-30 year lifespan even though it’s missing important internal organs like the heart, lungs, liver, and adaptive immune system.
Forget about the model’s weights, the revolution will be published in an academic journal. The underlying principles of AGI are going to be talked about, even if the exact methods are secret. As a scientist, to discover something important and then carry it to the grave is an absurd proposition. That is not asking people for discretion or secrecy, that is asking them for their resignation and early permanent retirement.
The nuclear bomb industry is in a similar state: we all know the basic science but we dont publish schematics! This minor omission from the scientific literature only slowed down nuclear armament, but it did not prevent the cold war nuclear arms race. However, unlike bombs, AGI might actually be useful and so most people are much more motivated to persue this tech.