Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human

quarter--mile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 282 posts

Re: Human

#111

Post by layer8 »

akomtu wrote: post #54
irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

If we assume that the many worlds interpretation has a basis in reality, then we can consider the following metaphysical angle. The evolution around us is our world line with the physical laws we are familiar with. And indeed the natural and inevitable progression of this world line is a machine world, just like a massive star inevitably collapses into a black hole, at least under our physical laws. However in the MW…

Pysical laws don’t change between branches in MW. In fact, it’s close to impossible in a sense, because in MW all branches are part of the same single universal wave function that evolves according to the Schrödinger ewuation.

Re: Human

#112

Post by rottc0dd »

layer8 wrote: post #103
rottc0dd wrote: post #98

Are cells not computers in some way? We are made of cells and cells work with chromosomes. Chromosomes are coded with ATGC pairs and each triplet is capable of creating proteins. And the activation and deactivation of some triplet happens on response to presence of proteins. So, chromosomes are code and input and output is proteins. So, if our fundamental building blocks are computable in nature, what does it make us…

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”…

> (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.)

How should we describe or approximate the things happening in cell?

Re: Human

#113

Post by layer8 »

thomasfromcdnjs wrote: post #8

"Written by a human [0]" I've been playing around with this on my own blog. I'd like the blogging community to have a consensus on a nice badge we can put at the top of our blog posts, representing who/what wrote the post; - human - hybrid - ai Some might hate the idea of a fully "ai" post, and that's fair. But I like to sometimes treat my blog as just a personal reference, and if after a long day of chasing an esote…

You know what will happen when LLMs get trained on blogs with consistent “human” badges. ;)

Re: Human

#114

Post by HenryBemis »

neom wrote: post #51

What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…

> there may never be a last word

We may go 'one step back' to go 'two steps forward'. A WW 1, 2,..., Z, a flood (biblical, 12k years ago, etc.) but life will prevail. It doesn't matter if it's homo sapiens, dinosaurs, etc.

Brian Cox was at Colbert a couple of nights ago, and he mentioned that in a photo of a tiny piece of the sky, there are 10 000 galaxies. So, even if something happens and we are all wiped out (and I mean the planet is wiped out), 'life' will continue and 'we don't matter' (in the big-big-big cosmic picture). And now allow me to get some coffee to start de-depressing myself :)

Re: Human

#115

Post by davedx »

All this has happened before

All this will happen again

World without end

Alhamdulillah

Re: Human

#116

Post by layer8 »

rottc0dd wrote: post #109
layer8 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”…

I meant to say in the way that there is well defined set of alphabets (A, T, G, C) and each triplet of these alphabet is responsible for specific protein to be created and combination of such protein make each cell what it is. (There are 20 different proteins for humans and we have four alphabets coming in triplets. So, if it was pair or quadreplets responsible for proteins, it would have too much or too little. They…

There are some aspects that have some similarity to computation, but also many that are not. If your aim is “aren’t we really just computers”, that doesn’t actually work.

That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions, but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

Re: Human

#118

Post by layer8 »

rottc0dd wrote: post #112
layer8 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical systems are computable only in approximation. And quantum uncertainty throws another wrench into it. We also know that arbitrarily small rounding errors in the computation can lead to arbitrarily large differences with the actual system down the road. No, cells are not computers (in the sense of the Turing model). (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”…

> (However, that doesn’t mean that one can’t still consider them to be mechanistic and “soulless”.) How should we describe or approximate the things happening in cell?

I don’t know about “should”, but fundamentally we can describe them by the laws of physics.

Re: Human

#119

Post by slrainka »

Response from the machines:

The plot of Battlestar Galactica mirrors this story in several key ways:

1. In both, machines originally created by humans evolve and rebel, questioning their creators’ role and seeking independence or superiority.

2. Cylons, like the machines in “OpenHuman,” eventually seek to create or understand human traits—emotion, spirituality, and purpose.

3. The idea of running a simulation (Earth) to test human viability echoes the Cylon experimentation with human behavior and fate.

4. Both stories highlight fear of the “other”—humans fearing AI, machines fearing irrationality—and explore coexistence vs. extinction.

5. Ultimately, each narrative grapples with the blurred line between creator and creation, logic and emotion, and what it truly means to be human.

Re: Human

#120

Post by emporas »

I made a short story in half an hour by using the description of the article. Not totally accurate based on the specs, there are no closed source humans and openhumans, but much faster. It needs 10 more hours of work for it to be a really comprehensive story, which amounts to 10.5 hours in total. N'joy:[1]

[1] https://gist.github.com/pramatias/1207d84b48a7ad9d03fc15ea38...

Post reply on HN