3 ms·

This is not a logical comment. Everything is made of stardust - including the androids we'd construct. ...and while "complexity" is one word for our DNA - ano

This is not a logical comment. Everything is made of stardust - including the androids we'd construct. ...and while "complexity" is one word for our DNA - another more accurate term would be "complete fucking mess of code". It breaks frequently, is nearly impossible to model and predict, and can only be modified with agonizing inaccurate testing. Your only reasonable argument here is that computing power isn't up to snuff. That's true - but that argument is rapidly dwindling.

virgilp 7y ago
> another more accurate term would be "complete fucking mess of code" That just tells me you didn't write it, but I guess I already suspected that.
Valgrim 7y ago
Maybe it seems like a "complete fucking mess of code" because it's not code at all! See https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingr... Also relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1605/ https://xkcd.com/1605/
- koheripbal 7y ago
  The first link is essentially a description of epigenetics - which I'm not arguing against. It's "part of the mess". The second link is funny, but not an accurate comparison because when decompiled/deobfuscated, the google.com page resolves to well structured code. The human genome does not - there are interdependencies that have no logical purpose - pure happenstance. ...but that's not really my point anyway. My point is simply that it would be easier to build a better system from scratch. It might not be able to self-replicate from a single unit in the wild, but that no longer needs to be a requirement for us as a species.
  - Valgrim 7y ago
    Maybe it would be easier, maybe not. My point is that we don't understand how the brain, intelligence, consciousness and emotions works. We try really hard to, in many different ways, and it's anything but easy. Every time artificial intelligence gets popular, we get the impression that we are on the grasp of understanding it, until we hit a wall. I'm pretty sure the robots we send on other planets or around other stars will be very capable, but I don't think we can just reinvent our humanity from scratch.

virgilp 7y ago

> another more accurate term would be "complete fucking mess of code" That just tells me you didn't write it, but I guess I already suspected that.

Valgrim 7y ago

Maybe it seems like a "complete fucking mess of code" because it's not code at all! See https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingr... Also relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1605/ https://xkcd.com/1605/

koheripbal 7y ago
The first link is essentially a description of epigenetics - which I'm not arguing against. It's "part of the mess". The second link is funny, but not an accurate comparison because when decompiled/deobfuscated, the google.com page resolves to well structured code. The human genome does not - there are interdependencies that have no logical purpose - pure happenstance. ...but that's not really my point anyway. My point is simply that it would be easier to build a better system from scratch. It might not be able to self-replicate from a single unit in the wild, but that no longer needs to be a requirement for us as a species.
- Valgrim 7y ago
  Maybe it would be easier, maybe not. My point is that we don't understand how the brain, intelligence, consciousness and emotions works. We try really hard to, in many different ways, and it's anything but easy. Every time artificial intelligence gets popular, we get the impression that we are on the grasp of understanding it, until we hit a wall. I'm pretty sure the robots we send on other planets or around other stars will be very capable, but I don't think we can just reinvent our humanity from scratch.