• dave@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    You say that, and GAs were used decades ago to design FPGAs to a spec. The evolved design worked perfectly on the test chip, so the design was copied onto a second chip and it failed. The logic gates were identical but the GA had utilised microscopic differences in the substrate and there were large areas of programmed chip totally unconnected to the main circuit. Without them, the first chip didn’t work any more.

    There are likely quantum effects available at the size / scale of neurons, and it’s brave to say evolution wouldn’t exploit them if there was some benefit.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah yeah yeah, probably exploiting capacitance instead of on-spec functionality, I’m well familiar with this example. It’s not relevant - there’s eight billion human brains in the world, and they generally still function despite the wild shit we put them through. They are not fragile.

      A human mind is not balanced on a knife-edge, where one tiny difference breaks everything. They’re complex enough that sometimes blowing a railroad spike clean through just alters functionality. It’s still a mind. Subatomic interactions surely cannot be crucial here.

      And again, this is only the extreme example. Y’think all known laws of the universe are mandatory? Great, simulate those too. Same answer: meat has no monopoly on thought because metal can fake the meat. There is no philosophical basis for even suggesting AGI is impossible, unless you start talking about souls.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The scale of neurons is too big for quantum effects, but that’s contemporary understanding that may change in the future. We’re really far from understanding both what mind is and how to make one