Living organisms represent a level of technological achievement that we're still far from rivaling.pic.twitter.com/OGoH0xzMAS
Show this thread
-
A significant difference, as beautifully outlined by Francis Crick, is that "living organisms have not been designed but they have been evolved"...
This is flimsy distinction, that will feel increasingly prehistoric as technology advances. Even today, all technology is the outcome of an evolution process, and in the future most artifacts will be created via search/optimization without much human involvement.
-
-
Maybe not that flimsy... Crick was deep thinker about problems in biology and neuroscience... Biological evolution operates at a level of complexity and time scales which are far greater than those of man made technologies even in a foreseeable future...
-
In addition to that, search/optimization algorithms designed by humans differ largely of the mechanisms used by biological evolution at the moment... And I guess that was also part of Crick criticism..
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Disagree. There is a fundamental difference between natural evolution („random walk + survivor bias“) and modern numerical optimization methods, the latter being intrinsically goal driven (objective functions). Conflating both is making exactly the mistake Crick refers to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.