5 ms·

We empirically do not need AGI for computational/intelligence explosion. Biological viruses like SARS-Cov-2 are relatively simple programs ~30kb that optimize

We empirically do not need AGI for computational/intelligence explosion. Biological viruses like SARS-Cov-2 are relatively simple programs ~30kb that optimize themselves. Single virus has no chance of out computing and evading an immune system, but billions of billions of viruses can out compute and evade even human civilization as a whole. And that's still just a spoonful of matter limited by Earth organisms availability. A self-replicating spacecraft does not need to be limited by Earthly constraints.

jqpabc123 6y ago
A simple virus has abilities that no "computer" has ever demonstrated. For example, the ability to reproduce and optimize it's own programming for survival and expansion.
- libraryatnight 6y ago
  I know we're not on good terms with them, but man are viruses cool and fascinating.
  - p1mrx 6y ago
    Bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) are particularly interesting, because we might be able to use them as targeted antibiotics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg
- phreeza 6y ago
  Not an expert but I'd be surprised if some modern computer viruses don't have some dynamic adaptability of their obfuscation to evade antivirus programs.
  - jqpabc123 6y ago
    They probably do --- within the strict limits and confines of logic provided by the programmer. A computer virus has no ability to change or adapt beyond these rigid bounds without being re-programmed with new logic. But a biological virus can change and adapt to new situations and environments all on it's own --- with new logic of it's own design. You could easily argue that a simple biological virus is more "intelligent".
    - phreeza 6y ago
      I don't know... Are the confines of nature, i.e. physical law, and the confines of programming that different in the end? The search space may be larger and thus it makes sense to use a different optimization strategy, but in the end both cases just follow a relatively simple program to achieve their goal.
      - jqpabc123 6y ago
        The obvious difference is that a simple biological virus is arguably much more effective at exploring it's environment and adapting to it in order to survive, grow and expand.
    - Isinlor 6y ago
      The difference is not only of quality, but quantity. Computing power that biological platforms provide are quite huge. Each infected person carries 1e9 - 1e11 virions during peak infection [0]. If there are 1 million (1e6) infected people right now then we have around 1e15 - 1e17 virons. With a viron size of 32kb and 8h replication time [1] we get speed of ~10 bits/s or very roughly 1 FLOPS per viron. That gives us computing power used for virus replication between 1 petaFLOPS to 100 petaFLOPS. The number is probably an underestimate because 1 viron probably needs to produce 1000 or more copies to maintain replication rate of 1. The upper bound then would be 100 exaFLOPS. That's in the range of TOP500 supercomputers (1.3 petaFLOPS - 442 petaFLOPS) [2]. The sum of all TOP500 supercomputers is 2.4 exaFLOPS, so some 40 times less than the upper bound on the virus of 100 exaFLOPS. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/ [2] https://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/ https://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/
      - jqpabc123 6y ago
        So in other words; by your math, all the supercomputers in the world are not enough to replicate the "intelligence" of a simple biological virus --- which is technically not even alive. Replicating "intelligence" that is alive is probably a trillion times more difficult. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you just made an argument for "Why Computers (as we know them) Won't Make Themselves Smarter".
- jerome-jh 6y ago
  A virus is DNA encapsulated in proteins. DNA is nothing more than information and the encapsulating proteins a medium to infect a host. Think of it as a small program on a USB drive. It does not compute nor reproduce by itself, only thanks to a host system. As for optimization, it is a pure random walk.
  - jqpabc123 6y ago
    You've re-stated the problem but you haven't changed the facts. We have yet to build a computer program that can adapt and "learn" and grow as effectively or as efficiently as a simple biological virus. In other words, a virus; which is technically not even alive, is closer to being "intelligent" than anything AI has yet produced. Never mind intelligence that is alive.
    - jerome-jh 6y ago
      Again it is a pure random walk, only parallelized on a large number of nodes, and run for a very long time: basically since the beginning of life. I would not describe this process as efficient. It has no memory: mutations could be randomly done and undone. A huge majority of mutations lead to non viable viruses, still keep occurring again and again. Of course it successfully adapts to changing conditions, but without that that would not even be an optimization algorithm. Given huge resources we would have no difficulty simulating such a process. At a smaller scale it has inspired genetic algorithms and a large family of stochastic algorithms, which had to be carefully refined to become useful. We do not have the same resources and the same patience as Mother Nature.
      - jqpabc123 6y ago
        We do not have the same resources and the same patience as Mother Nature. Exactly! Overall, Mother Nature is actually pretty resource efficient.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Viruses can't do anything without an ecosystem of hosts to parasitise. It's the ecosystem that's doing the computation, not the virus. From that POV we already have AGI. We're just not aware of it. And it's not particularly sentient yet.
- 6510 6y ago
  Good point. We provide the ecosystem and corporations are the parasite. Companies are doing lots of things no human could begin to imagine doing on his own. We can try resist the will of our employer but it may simply replace us. It is obvious who is wearing the pants.
  - adwn 6y ago
    > corporations are the parasite Corporations aren't parasites. If you have to think of corporations as living entities, then humans are living in a symbiotic relationship with them: Humans provide them with labor, and in turn they provide products which are consumed by humans.
    - sliken 6y ago
      Increasingly is seems like corporations are providing products to other corporations, and the number of humans involves is dropping. Thus the increasing divide between the 1% and the 99%, stock markets hitting all time highs, while ever more people worry about basic necessities and even the most basic employment.

jqpabc123 6y ago

A simple virus has abilities that no "computer" has ever demonstrated. For example, the ability to reproduce and optimize it's own programming for survival and expansion.

libraryatnight 6y ago
I know we're not on good terms with them, but man are viruses cool and fascinating.
- p1mrx 6y ago
  Bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) are particularly interesting, because we might be able to use them as targeted antibiotics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI3tsmFsrOg
phreeza 6y ago
Not an expert but I'd be surprised if some modern computer viruses don't have some dynamic adaptability of their obfuscation to evade antivirus programs.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  They probably do --- within the strict limits and confines of logic provided by the programmer. A computer virus has no ability to change or adapt beyond these rigid bounds without being re-programmed with new logic. But a biological virus can change and adapt to new situations and environments all on it's own --- with new logic of it's own design. You could easily argue that a simple biological virus is more "intelligent".
  - phreeza 6y ago
    I don't know... Are the confines of nature, i.e. physical law, and the confines of programming that different in the end? The search space may be larger and thus it makes sense to use a different optimization strategy, but in the end both cases just follow a relatively simple program to achieve their goal.
    - jqpabc123 6y ago
      The obvious difference is that a simple biological virus is arguably much more effective at exploring it's environment and adapting to it in order to survive, grow and expand.
  - Isinlor 6y ago
    The difference is not only of quality, but quantity. Computing power that biological platforms provide are quite huge. Each infected person carries 1e9 - 1e11 virions during peak infection [0]. If there are 1 million (1e6) infected people right now then we have around 1e15 - 1e17 virons. With a viron size of 32kb and 8h replication time [1] we get speed of ~10 bits/s or very roughly 1 FLOPS per viron. That gives us computing power used for virus replication between 1 petaFLOPS to 100 petaFLOPS. The number is probably an underestimate because 1 viron probably needs to produce 1000 or more copies to maintain replication rate of 1. The upper bound then would be 100 exaFLOPS. That's in the range of TOP500 supercomputers (1.3 petaFLOPS - 442 petaFLOPS) [2]. The sum of all TOP500 supercomputers is 2.4 exaFLOPS, so some 40 times less than the upper bound on the virus of 100 exaFLOPS. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/ [2] https://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/ https://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/
    - jqpabc123 6y ago
      So in other words; by your math, all the supercomputers in the world are not enough to replicate the "intelligence" of a simple biological virus --- which is technically not even alive. Replicating "intelligence" that is alive is probably a trillion times more difficult. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you just made an argument for "Why Computers (as we know them) Won't Make Themselves Smarter".
jerome-jh 6y ago
A virus is DNA encapsulated in proteins. DNA is nothing more than information and the encapsulating proteins a medium to infect a host. Think of it as a small program on a USB drive. It does not compute nor reproduce by itself, only thanks to a host system. As for optimization, it is a pure random walk.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  You've re-stated the problem but you haven't changed the facts. We have yet to build a computer program that can adapt and "learn" and grow as effectively or as efficiently as a simple biological virus. In other words, a virus; which is technically not even alive, is closer to being "intelligent" than anything AI has yet produced. Never mind intelligence that is alive.
  - jerome-jh 6y ago
    Again it is a pure random walk, only parallelized on a large number of nodes, and run for a very long time: basically since the beginning of life. I would not describe this process as efficient. It has no memory: mutations could be randomly done and undone. A huge majority of mutations lead to non viable viruses, still keep occurring again and again. Of course it successfully adapts to changing conditions, but without that that would not even be an optimization algorithm. Given huge resources we would have no difficulty simulating such a process. At a smaller scale it has inspired genetic algorithms and a large family of stochastic algorithms, which had to be carefully refined to become useful. We do not have the same resources and the same patience as Mother Nature.
    - jqpabc123 6y ago
      We do not have the same resources and the same patience as Mother Nature. Exactly! Overall, Mother Nature is actually pretty resource efficient.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Viruses can't do anything without an ecosystem of hosts to parasitise. It's the ecosystem that's doing the computation, not the virus. From that POV we already have AGI. We're just not aware of it. And it's not particularly sentient yet.

6510 6y ago
Good point. We provide the ecosystem and corporations are the parasite. Companies are doing lots of things no human could begin to imagine doing on his own. We can try resist the will of our employer but it may simply replace us. It is obvious who is wearing the pants.
- adwn 6y ago
  > corporations are the parasite Corporations aren't parasites. If you have to think of corporations as living entities, then humans are living in a symbiotic relationship with them: Humans provide them with labor, and in turn they provide products which are consumed by humans.
  - sliken 6y ago
    Increasingly is seems like corporations are providing products to other corporations, and the number of humans involves is dropping. Thus the increasing divide between the 1% and the 99%, stock markets hitting all time highs, while ever more people worry about basic necessities and even the most basic employment.