11–20 of 159 posts
Wow it's amazing how much progress was made on this! a full simulation!!!!
Are you shitting on peoples work just for the sake of shitting on it? edit. this comment seems unpopular, my intent was to defend the worm against trolls :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the goal. > Our main goal is to build the world's first virtual organism - an in-silico implementation of a living creature - for the purpose of achieving an understanding of the events and mechanisms of living cells. This blog post is interesting: "Whole Brain Emulation: No Progress on C. elegans After 10 Years" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mHqQxwKuzZS69CXX5/whole-brai... As other mentioned in the comment…
Replicating something exactly is a lot harder than making something that does the same thing in a different way. We can build planes that travel far faster than a bird could but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for us to exactly replicate how a bird flies, so I don’t think this says anything about how far away we are from a superintelligence
Edit: I am surprised at the downvotes. In general, we learn from the nature, but aping it usually proved too difficult and often unpractical at the same time. Do we really want to replicate worm intelligence for practical purposes, or do we want something different?
I would say that a machine which can, say, analyze chemical compounds for their potential biological functions, is a very practical form of "intelligence" and yet very far from any biological intelligence that was ever produced in vivo. Worms cannot do that and even humans struggle with such tasks.
Neurons are similar, they are incredibly sophisticated biological machines, with billions of DNA base pairs controlling their behavior. The emergent behavior of neurons in both biological and AI systems are pretty fascinating
So is this an exact digital replica of a worm?
How can we exactly replicate something if we don't even know all the laws of physics?
So is this an exact digital replica of a worm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the goal. > Our main goal is to build the world's first virtual organism - an in-silico implementation of a living creature - for the purpose of achieving an understanding of the events and mechanisms of living cells. This blog post is interesting: "Whole Brain Emulation: No Progress on C. elegans After 10 Years" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mHqQxwKuzZS69CXX5/whole-brai... As other mentioned in the comment…
Replicating something exactly is a lot harder than making something that does the same thing in a different way. We can build planes that travel far faster than a bird could but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for us to exactly replicate how a bird flies, so I don’t think this says anything about how far away we are from a superintelligence
So is this an exact digital replica of a worm?
This is the goal. > Our main goal is to build the world's first virtual organism - an in-silico implementation of a living creature - for the purpose of achieving an understanding of the events and mechanisms of living cells. This blog post is interesting: "Whole Brain Emulation: No Progress on C. elegans After 10 Years" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mHqQxwKuzZS69CXX5/whole-brai... As other mentioned in the comment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replicating something exactly is a lot harder than making something that does the same thing in a different way. We can build planes that travel far faster than a bird could but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for us to exactly replicate how a bird flies, so I don’t think this says anything about how far away we are from a superintelligence
This. Submarines don't swim like fish, airplanes don't fly like birds and cars don't run like gepards. Edit: I am surprised at the downvotes. In general, we learn from the nature, but aping it usually proved too difficult and often unpractical at the same time. Do we really want to replicate worm intelligence for practical purposes, or do we want something different? I would say that a machine which can, say, analyze…