Evolution not limited to life on earth?

[AIkonoklazt]

5 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

@AIkonoklazt

There are hardware RNG's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

Beyond activation no human needs to be involved

 

Who or what wrote the algorithms that take the input?

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody here except you has mentioned policy, AI or otherwise. The thread regards whether evolution is an earth only process. 

People started addressing my objection regarding the article cited by OP. I agree to split thread.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

 

The capability came from human input. Terms like "self-driving car" or "self-modification / self-production" of any artifact are ignorant misattributions of agency (see the court case I mention below. The judge himself claimed ignorance on the subject)

...That capability came from human beings. Artifacts are not self-actuated entities.

Which is completely beside the point. Repeating the strawman doesn’t make it any more relevant.

 

 

[Endy0816]

47 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Who or what wrote the algorithms that take the input?

People started addressing my objection regarding the article cited by OP. I agree to split thread.

You're probably see an initial compiler and or interpreter program. They're really nothing fancy as far as coding goes.

You could also do this at the hardware level. Programming isn't really required though it would make it easier.

 

 

[AIkonoklazt]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is completely beside the point. Repeating the strawman doesn’t make it any more relevant.

Not a strawman against the titular claim of the article ("...by itself") as well as all others like it.

18 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

You're probably see an initial compiler and or interpreter program. They're really nothing fancy as far as coding goes.

You could also do this at the hardware level. Programming isn't really required though it would make it easier.

The hardware level is still considered to be programming.

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The hardware level is still considered to be programming.

Partly isn't programmed by anyone though...

There's always human neurons we use too, if you think intelligence is limited to those .

Edited December 28, 2023 by Endy0816

[Arthur Smith]

On 12/26/2023 at 1:12 AM, swansont said:

We speak of language evolving, or technology evolving. Of course AI is going to evolve. It just won't necessarily be Darwinian.

Asking as a dyed-in-the-wool adaptationist, what other mechanisms can be substituted for selection that produce change over time?

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Arthur Smith said:

Asking as a dyed-in-the-wool adaptationist, what other mechanisms can be substituted for selection that produce change over time?

External intervention, deliberate or otherwise.

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Not a strawman against the titular claim of the article ("...by itself") as well as all others like it.

After the code was written, was there any intervention by humans?

6 hours ago, Arthur Smith said:

Asking as a dyed-in-the-wool adaptationist, what other mechanisms can be substituted for selection that produce change over time?

Drift also does this. What is the point?

[Arthur Smith]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Drift also does this.

In small populations, random genetic drift results in loss of allelic variation, which in turn can lead to extinction. I guess the empty niche left is an opportunity for another species. I'm yet to be convinced of how else drift contributes to adaptive evolution.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

External intervention, deliberate or otherwise.

Would that not be artificial selection?

[AIkonoklazt]

20 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Partly isn't programmed by anyone though...

There's always human neurons we use too, if you think intelligence is limited to those .

Which part do you refer to which isn't subject to algorithmic operation?

Human neurons aren't results of design, and thus are not artifacts.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

After the code was written, was there any intervention by humans?

It doesn't matter. You can't roll a marble on a table and attribute agency to it after it leaves your hand.

Since I've admitted that the term "evolution" can denote simple "change," I am derailing the topic- Maybe this thread can be split.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Arthur Smith said:

In small populations, random genetic drift results in loss of allelic variation, which in turn can lead to extinction. I guess the empty niche left is an opportunity for another species. I'm yet to be convinced of how else drift contributes to adaptive evolution.

Again: is there a point to this?

[AIkonoklazt]

split Topic: Artifacts such as machines can never do anything "on its own."

Edited December 29, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It doesn't matter. You can't roll a marble on a table and attribute agency to it after it leaves your hand.

Demolishing yet another claim nobody has made. 

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

split Topic: Artifacts such as machines can never do anything "on its own."

You do know you have the power to start your own thread on the topic, right?

 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Demolishing yet another claim nobody has made. 

The article I linked to had a titular claim which is a misattribution of agency to a machine.

[swansont]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

The article I linked to had a titular claim which is a misattribution of agency to a machine.

Does it mention marbles?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, swansont said:

Does it mention marbles?

I used a marble as an example of an artifact. All machines are artifacts.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

You do know you have the power to start your own thread on the topic, right?

 

I wasn't sure if splitting threads involve actually removing messages from one thread and placing them in another.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I used a marble as an example of an artifact. All machines are artifacts.

The fallacy pointed out so well by Monty Python

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

IOW, not all artifacts are computers; a marble is not a valid substitute.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The fallacy pointed out so well by Monty Python

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

IOW, not all artifacts are computers; a marble is not a valid substitute.

I don't see how that applies to the analogy, since neither marble nor machine gains agency after it leaves human hands.

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I don't see how that applies to the analogy, since neither marble nor machine gains agency after it leaves human hands.

You’re going to have to define what you mean by “gains agency” because this seems trivially wrong. 

[AIkonoklazt]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re going to have to define what you mean by “gains agency” because this seems trivially wrong. 

A machine doesn't have any agency, during its construction and programming, or after. It won't suddenly possess agency after its design process.

Edited December 29, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[swansont]

9 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

A machine doesn't have any agency, during its construction and programming, or after. It won't suddenly possess agency after its design process.

Please define what you mean by agency. Repetition is not definition. I don’t know why you are sidestepping this.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

A machine doesn't have any agency, during its construction and programming, or after. It won't suddenly possess agency after its design process.

And?

In a topic about evolution, which is essentially the process of getting better at what it is/does, there can be absolutely no doubt that this is happening with computer's; in fact IIRC human's no longer designs the architecture of a computer chip, a computer does.

We can never know what evolution will produce tomorrow, given enough tomorrow's it could be anything that's physically possible, even a computer with agency.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know why you are sidestepping this.

 Because he doesn't know the answer, ask enough times and he'll block you (don't worry, he can't hear me 😉).

[Endy0816]

12 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Which part do you refer to which isn't subject to algorithmic operation?

Human neurons aren't results of design, and thus are not artifacts.

The True random numbers are not the result of an algorithm.

Most of us are more familiar with a computer's typical pseudorandom numbers, but that isn't the only option.

 

Not sure what you mean by artifacts here.

This article talks about it:

https://futurism.com/neoscope/computer-human-brain-cells-perform-voice-recognition

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Not sure what you mean by artifacts here.

Don't worry, nor is he.

Organoid's are an exciting new line of inquiry thoguh.

[Arthur Smith]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Again: is there a point to this?

Yes. Evolution requires a selective bias for adaptive change to take place. Drift does not introduce selective bias. Your demand for a definition of "agency" may be perhaps answered by a selection process.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Arthur Smith