3 ms·
I think it’s interesting that people think we’ll be able to make something that does more in a smaller space. As if there was something other than the laws o
by erikpukinskis 7y ago
I think it’s interesting that people think we’ll be able to make something that does more in a smaller space.
As if there was something other than the laws of physics preventing natural selection from testing smaller structures.
Or that there’s something (other than the demands of the computation itself) constraining the architectures that were tested through natural selection.
- whatshisface 7y agoConstraints: - No temperatures hot enough to melt silicon or metal. - Everything must unfold from a single cell during the process of reproduction, no factories allowed. - Everything must be made out of what it can find to eat, no mining allowed unless you're a subterranean bacteria.
- jayd16 7y agoWe out design nature all the time. Evolution doesn't find perfection, it finds whats good enough.
- randcraw 7y agoRight. Every tool invented by humans is superior in achieving a certain end than is our inborn equivalent. We don't have to faithfully model nature to surpass it. Likewise manmade models based in mathematics and statistics have long proved more accurate in predicting outcomes than the human mind, even though we know the mind doesn't employ math. Human-made machines have made it possible for elephants to fly. Nature never will.
- inimino 7y ago> something (other than the demands of the computation itself) constraining the architectures that were tested through natural selection. There is. Anything that can't be reached by a small number of genetically small steps that either enhance or at least maintain fitness will never be reached.