= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on New report: Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (244)
Then it would be harder, in fact impossible, to end up with slightly better proteins via point mutations. A point mutation in a string gives you a completely different secure hash of that string.
This isn't a minor quibble, it's a major reason to go "Whaa?" at the idea that protein folding and protein design have intractable search spaces in practice. They have highly regular search spaces in practice or evolution couldn't traverse that space at all.
Yep, it's highly implausible that a natural non-designed process would happen to be a secure hash (as you know from arguing with cryonics skeptics). And that's before we look at how evolution works.
Good point. The search space is at least smooth once in a few thousand tries. (While doing the nearby fermi estimate, I saw a result that 12% (!!!) of point mutations in some bacteria were beneficial).
That said, the "worst possible case" is usually interesting.