For most of computing history, hardware and wetware had a workable arrangement. Computers calculated things. Brains decided what to calculate, forgot their passwords, and spilled coffee into the computers. The distinction was reassuringly physical. One required electricity; the other required lunch. Now researchers are mapping brains in extraordinary detail, and developers are giving the resulting models lightsabers. The relationship has become more complicated.
On September 3, Google described a milestone achieved with HHMI Janelia and other collaborators: a complete wiring map of an adult male fruit fly’s brain and ventral nerve cord. It contains more than 166,000 neurons and roughly 125 million synaptic connections. AI helped reconstruct the circuitry from microscopic images; human experts checked it. The result, called a connectome, makes an astonishing amount of biological machinery available for inspection. Google’s research account.
The internet inspected it and promptly arranged extracurricular activities. Simulated fly circuitry appeared in Doom, Beat Saber, and poker demonstrations. Evolution spent millions of years equipping an insect to locate fermenting fruit. We have assigned its wiring a career in competitive entertainment. Somewhere, a banana is wondering why customer retention has collapsed.
There is, however, some small print beneath the tiny lightsabers. The Beat Saber creator explained that the showcased model was overfitted to one track and received assistance from replay data. Its movements came through the modeled circuitry, but the clip did not establish independent mastery of the game. Think of an ambitious recital with the teacher still helping at the piano. The creator’s explanation.
DOOMFLY’s documentation is admirably candid: its current experimental version has not demonstrated learned survival and failed its validation checks. The poker demonstration, meanwhile, describes hundreds of Monte Carlo calculations for estimating hands. Before offering the insect a seat at your casino, establish who is doing the arithmetic. These projects are entertaining experiments whose biological wiring sits inside substantial human engineering. DOOMFLY documentation, poker demonstration.
That distinction matters because a connectome tells us which neurons connect. Turning that structure into a working simulation also requires assumptions about electrical behavior, chemical signaling, connection strength, and internal state. A street map is enormously useful, but it cannot tell you why the driver outside your house has been honking for seven minutes. Structure constrains behavior. It does not supply every detail of the traffic.
The hardware analogy has another complication. In a brain, learning can change the connections doing the learning. The equipment participates in its own redesign. Imagine a laptop rearranging its circuitry because it has been taking piano lessons. The warranty department would need a quiet room.
Still, the scientific promise comfortably survives the correction. A 2024 study used a connectome-based fly model to predict aspects of feeding and grooming circuits, then tested predictions in real animals. That is an extraordinary feedback loop: reconstruct biological circuitry, investigate it computationally, and return to biology with better questions. The same paper carefully describes what its simplified neurons leave out. Apparently, admitting limitations does not cause science to stop working. The Nature study.
Which brings us to Neuralink and the prospect of doing something useful with the considerably larger nervous system currently reading this sentence. Brain-computer interfaces already operate without a complete human connectome. Neuralink reports trial participants controlling computers and an assistive robotic arm by translating recorded neural activity into commands. For somebody with paralysis, independently studying, communicating, or handling an object can be a profound gain. It deserves attention even when no insect is holding a weapon. Neuralink’s January 2026 update.
My expectation is that richer human brain maps could make such interfaces substantially better, especially when combined with recordings of living neural activity. They could help researchers identify useful circuits, interpret signals, and design more targeted stimulation. Better anatomical knowledge could reduce some guesswork. Yet the map would remain one ingredient in a system that must learn how a particular person’s brain behaves.
The scale is sobering. Google puts the human brain at roughly 86 billion neurons and says mapping it at this level remains beyond reach. Moreover, the microscopy used for these connectomes requires prepared, sectioned tissue. That is a serious obstacle to offering the procedure as a lunchtime scan. Most customers would prefer to leave the appointment with their original brain still installed. Google on the methods and remaining challenges.
Commercial success also involves matters that rarely trend: durable implants, dependable signals, manageable costs, and years of support. A beautiful map cannot guarantee that an implanted device will keep working reliably. Nor does successful treatment automatically create a consumer market. Someone seeking restored independence and someone seeking faster spreadsheet navigation have very different reasons to consider surgery.
I would therefore expect the strongest early successes to come from focused medical uses. Broader enhancement is a more speculative proposition. Companies that combine neuroscience with reliable engineering could become enormously valuable; possession of a brain atlas alone will confer no magical franchise over thought. A service contract for the contents of my skull would also receive considerably more scrutiny than the one for my printer.
The boundary between hardware and wetware is becoming more interesting because we can increasingly examine, model, and connect their operations. That is ample reason for excitement. We may learn to repair functions once thought permanently lost. We may build better machines by understanding biological ones. And we will certainly continue giving the fly inappropriate responsibilities. It has barely finished its first gaming session, and someone already wants to discuss its quarterly performance.
No comments yet