The relationship between artificial intelligence and living systems invites both promise and confusion. Study III proposes starting with a distinction: a system’s substrate, the function it performs and the evidence for that function are three different questions.
Technologies that do different things.
DNA storage primarily concerns the preservation and retrieval of information. Neuronal cultures or organoids can be studied in experimental systems for signal processing or learning. Brain–computer interfaces, in turn, establish communication between brain activity and an external device. These approaches are neither interchangeable nor at the same stage of development.
Comparing this work requires specifying the tasks, experimental conditions and resources involved. A bounded demonstration does not show that current computing architectures can be replaced, or that these experimental systems possess general intelligence.
An interface involves a person.
When a system interacts with the human brain, consent, withdrawal, autonomy and access to data become central. Who controls the interface? What happens if its provider stops maintaining it? How can a person’s intention be distinguished from the device’s interpretation?
Scenarios of hybridisation therefore call for considering performance and conditions of use together. A technical capability alone does not justify adoption, and improving one function does not capture the experience of the person concerned.
Examine without conflating.
The study is a critical and prospective synthesis. It brings published findings, proposed architectures and open questions together while preserving their different levels of evidence. It does not describe a technology developed by Fondation UvH or an experimental programme already deployed.
Its contribution is to clarify the terms of the debate: which functions are being pursued, on what substrates, for whose benefit and under whose responsibility?
Read the study and its summary