←back to thread

230 points mdp2021 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Crazyontap ◴[] No.41866060[source]
When I was younger, I was fascinated by evolution, especially the intricacies of how things just work. This fascination also explains why many people believe in the intelligent design theory.

However, witnessing the rapid evolution of AI with just a few hundred GPUs, enough data, and power, I no longer wonder what a billion years of feedback loops and randomness can achieve.

replies(18): >>41866202 #>>41866478 #>>41866660 #>>41866806 #>>41866826 #>>41867595 #>>41867652 #>>41867789 #>>41867813 #>>41867833 #>>41867834 #>>41867913 #>>41868264 #>>41868344 #>>41868565 #>>41868579 #>>41869785 #>>41909242 #
kortilla ◴[] No.41866806[source]
AI isn’t being trained on random though. It’s the corpus of a large portion of all of humanity’s written communication. I don’t think it’s a good analogy to evolution.

A single training session will iterate more than the number of generations of all birds.

replies(2): >>41867251 #>>41909280 #
tsimionescu ◴[] No.41867251[source]
> A single training session will iterate more than the number of generations of all birds.

But that's not the right analogy. Evolution happens at the individual level, and even to some extent at the individual gamete level. So it's actually every single fecundated bird egg that ever existed, and even every single spermatozoon and egg cell every time two birds mated. Not to mention every division of every bacterial cell in every bird gut, since microflora are a key part of the organism too.

And even this is an undercount, since the DNA and gene expression of an individual actually changes during its lifetime, and those changes can be passed down to offspring through various mechanisms. So there is a constant process of evolution that even all cells inside a living organism go through, that we're still trying to fully understand.

replies(2): >>41867491 #>>41870315 #
Ma8ee ◴[] No.41867491[source]
> since the DNA and gene expression of an individual actually changes during its lifetime, and those changes can be passed down to offspring through various mechanisms.

That statements need a whole lot of backing. It contradicts the Central dogma of molecular biology [0]. The idea that an organism can pass on to its offspring physical characteristics that the parent organism acquired through use or disuse during its lifetime is called Lamarckism which was disproven more than a hundred years ago.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_bio...

replies(3): >>41867715 #>>41867751 #>>41869580 #
1. tsimionescu ◴[] No.41869580{3}[source]
There are several processes, many of them documented on that very page, that allow an organism to pass on certain characteristics that happened during its lifetime to at least the next generation. One other example of such a process is horizontal gene transfer, typically through viruses, but also sometimes in plants through grafting.

For an extremely simple example, if a female organism is exposed to significant doses of radiation, the DNA inside the egg cells it was born with will have a high chance of suffering mutations. If one of those eggs remains viable and later gets fertilized, the DNA of the offspring produced from it will be significantly different from the DNA that of offspring born before the radiation exposure.

There are other more subtle and more common processes, though. The most surprising one is that DNA methylation, a process in which environmental stimuli encountered in a living sexually mature individual affect gene expression, has been proven to be transmissible to offspring across several generations in certain species. This includes stimuli such as prolonged exposure to heat or cold, long-term starvation, and others. This is indeed a form of Lamarckism that has actually been proven to happen, though of course it involves much subtler changes than some of what Lamarck envisioned.