the-podcast guy recently linked this essay, its old, but i don't think its significantly wrong (despite gpt evangelists) also read weizenbaum, libs, for the other side of the coin

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, maybe it's not, but afaik there's nothing that rules out the possibility. We can't do it now, but I'm not aware of any physical laws or limits that make it impossible for us to do it at some point when we've got a better understanding of what's happening and a lot of silicon to run the maths on.

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah maybe, but I don't think we're figuring it out anytime soon

I really like the description of evolution outcomes as "totally bonkers bs"

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I genuinely don't know how to explain what evolution is as a process most of the time "imagine a drop of water seeking the sea, but the drop of water really wants to fuck, and sometimes it gets hit by an asteroid?"

"Complex self-replicating systems reversing local entropy while undegoing variation caused by entropy until they lose equilibrium and can no longer self replicate" ?

It's an incredibly simple concept. Water seeks the sea. And it's also an incredibly complicated, obtuse concept. I think a huge part of the difficulty is cultural - we anthropomorphize and ascribe agency to everything, and evolution is the absolute and total absence of agency, the pure action of entropy