The human neurons are sourced entirely ethically, from skin cells to stem cells that make neurons somehow.
Similarly, we understand (at least mammalian) brain structure well enough to identify animals like cows to probably have relatively minimal conscious lived experience, even if they have ample processing power, i.e. "intelligence".
So at least in examples from nature, there is no reason to believe that intelligence and conscious lived experience need be correlated meaningfully.
So in your example, we would need some way to quantify the degree to which it's conscious, rather than intelligent.
Do you have any sources to back that up? As far as I'm aware, the 'hard problem of consciousness' is still 'hard'.
Yes, and I'd wager the scale at which their experiment is currently operating is very likely ethical too. In fact, I'm not saying anything they're doing right now is unethical. My use of the term unethical was in context of hypothetical experiments on a scale that would make Dr. Frankenstein's stomach churn.
That said, my only point was that it's disconcerting to see these people—who are currently growing tiny brains in a vat—state that they're very interested in AGI come to fruition via way of using human neurons.
(The problem of course is the possibility of it becoming conscious before we realize it, but it's very up in the air to what degree that's actually a risk. My intuition is that we'll see clear signs of it before it even fully forms.)
Probably, though I wouldn't be so sure we'll know what to make of more complex computer-brain hybrids:
"These neurons are then embedded in a nourishing liquid medium on top of a specialized metal-oxide chip containing a grid of 22,000 tiny electrodes that enable programmers to provide electrical inputs to the neurons and also sense their outputs."