Natural language has become an interface to code, images and molecules, but not to living matter: a stimulus applied to cells has no fixed linguistic meaning, and every paired example of an instruction and its outcome costs a wet-lab experiment. We ask how far an existing archive of experiments can take this interface, using xenobots, motile multicellular constructs made of frog cells, stimulated by a single electrical pulse of varying duration. We re-track 155 archived recordings with two independent methods, measure what the pulse does from each bot's own behaviour before and after it, and separate behaviours the pulse controls from behaviours it does not. Longer pulses stop bots and short pulses leave them moving, sometimes faster; turning direction and starting from rest do not depend on duration, and restarting at most weakly. We then replace hand-made behaviour labels with a blind language critic: fresh sessions of a multimodal language model read plots of each bot and score how well its behaviour matches each of 176 instructions. The critic agrees with the measured labels whenever its plots contain the information the labels are defined on, and dose curves learned from its scores match those learned from the measurements. A prompt-to-intervention model trained only on critic scores maps unseen instructions, including negations, to the right end of the dose range on unseen bots, as well as the same model trained on measured labels. The archive therefore supports a calibrated, refusing language interface for the three behaviours a pulse can set, and identifies, rather than hides, the behaviours it cannot.

翻译：暂无翻译