Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genes are just data. You can compare data.
Yes you can but fitness is defined by reproduction, not by similarity.
You don't make any sense. After all, your children are not your clones. You cannot "define" truth.
A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
81–90 of 103 posts
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#82ok this part kinda blew my brain open. it’s literally like you’re watching code evolve like git history on steroids. archive not pruning anything? yes. finally someone gets that dead code ain’t always dead it’s just early. letting weaker agents still contribute? feels illegal but also exactly how dumb breakthroughs happen. like half my best scripts started as broken junk. it just kept mutating till something clicked.…
A comment that while your writing style is not what the pedants in HN typically go for, I want you to know that I appreciate the humanity that shines forth from your post.
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genes are just data. You can compare data.
Yes you can but fitness is defined by reproduction, not by similarity.
Fitness of what? If you mean the genes, then a gene may have more copies made of it if it causes some of its carriers to assist other carriers of the same genes in ways that help them produce, rather than reproducing individually.
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not true. There are plenty of ways not to reproduce and still to perpetuate your genetics. For example, if you don't have children of your own, but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own.
"but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own." but how its that works then??? does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument
> does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place
Yes?
> if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument
What?
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you can but fitness is defined by reproduction, not by similarity.
You don't make any sense. After all, your children are not your clones. You cannot "define" truth.
> After all, your children are not your clones.
Human children are not clones but in asexual reproduction can produce literal clones.
> You cannot "define" truth.
I can and it isn't even hard. "Truth" is a word. It has a definition... by definition.
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you can but fitness is defined by reproduction, not by similarity.
Fitness of what? If you mean the genes, then a gene may have more copies made of it if it causes some of its carriers to assist other carriers of the same genes in ways that help them produce, rather than reproducing individually.
Yes, exactly, that is fitness. You have framed this like a counter-argument but then just described fitness.
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "gaming the system" in Darwinian evolution. You reproduce or you don't. There's no way to fail reproduction and still perpetuate your genetics.
That is not true. There are plenty of ways not to reproduce and still to perpetuate your genetics. For example, if you don't have children of your own, but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own.
[deleted]
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no "gaming the system" in Darwinian evolution. You reproduce or you don't. There's no way to fail reproduction and still perpetuate your genetics.
It is common misconception, but evolution does not happen at the individual level, but on populations, so a single individual not reproducing is irrelevant, as long as the local population carrying the same genes do successfully reproduce.
Ok how about "an organism reproduces or it doesn't" then?
Evolution still can't be "gamed".
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#89ok this part kinda blew my brain open. it’s literally like you’re watching code evolve like git history on steroids. archive not pruning anything? yes. finally someone gets that dead code ain’t always dead it’s just early. letting weaker agents still contribute? feels illegal but also exactly how dumb breakthroughs happen. like half my best scripts started as broken junk. it just kept mutating till something clicked.…
A comment that while your writing style is not what the pedants in HN typically go for, I want you to know that I appreciate the humanity that shines forth from your post.
[dead]
Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fitness of what? If you mean the genes, then a gene may have more copies made of it if it causes some of its carriers to assist other carriers of the same genes in ways that help them produce, rather than reproducing individually.
Yes, exactly, that is fitness. You have framed this like a counter-argument but then just described fitness.
I described fitness of genes, yes. Previously it seemed like you were saying that an individual of a species had low(zero) fitness if that individual doesn’t reproduce. Further, you seemed to imply that this was the relevant measure, seemingly to say so as a counterpoint to the point that an individual can act in a way that helps to propagate genes that that individual carries without actually reproducing.
It appears that some miscommunication occurred, which may have been me being dense or misinterpreting. Do you know where this miscommunication occurred?