You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread, Feb. 23 - Mar. 1, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 23 February 2015 08:01AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (161)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 26 February 2015 11:52:41AM *  0 points [-]

In principle, brains are Turing complete, and this means that evolution could be much smarter.

If by "evolution being smarter" you mean things like "brains becoming intelligent, developing science, and doing genetic engineering", then yes. But it's the brains who are smart, not the evolution per se.

The evolution would still fumble around the genetic landscape, except that with brains the local landscape becomes much more complicated, something like a fractal mountain instead of the smooth hills in most of the plain. On a different terrain, the weak algorithm may produce more interesting results. That does not make the algorithm more intelligent.

Comment author: MrMind 27 February 2015 10:39:47AM 1 point [-]

If by "evolution being smarter" you mean things like "brains becoming intelligent, developing science, and doing genetic engineering", then yes.

No, I meant that by sexual selection you can have an algorithm exploring the genetic landscape, you're not limited to random mutations.