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

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months 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