3 ms·
> Those same forces don't apply to computer programs. Windows ME didn't last too long in the wild. Same for CPU designs with bugs or exploits. I have to resp
by state_less 8y ago
> Those same forces don't apply to computer programs.
Windows ME didn't last too long in the wild. Same for CPU designs with bugs or exploits. I have to respectfully disagree on this, though I can see where you're coming from, given an individual's agency to run what they want. I think if you take a larger population view, you'll see the competitive pressures on these systems.
- baq 8y agoif you get CPUs to exchange their designs in quasi-sexual activities and let them multiply and evolve on their own, maybe. right now the competitive pressure is on their designers.
- ben_w 8y agoMy understanding is that for at least three years now chip feature size has been on a scale where the design software has to evolve (as in: their algorithm is simulated evolution) physical solutions to the logic-level designs to avoid unintentional self interaction, both quantum tunnelling and classical e.g. capacitance. Humans can’t do that for multi-billion transistor chips.
- state_less 8y agoFirst off, that sounds pretty hot. :) Second, if there is reproductive variation and selection, I think it's evolution. We take our old CPU design and make a new variation, that's the reproductive variation part. We also have a market select for which designs survive via purchases or lack thereof, the selection part. It doesn't matter to me so much if a life form that hosts it, a computer hosts it or a human mind.
- ZoomZoomZoom 8y agoThere's your ubiquitous singularity lurking somewhere near. Symbiosis between CPU and a Human advancing CPU's evolution. Not exactly what we were promised!