Plants with more flexible and responsive genetic systems were better able to adapt to changing environments and thus more likely to survive and reproduce, so yeah. However, the basic building blocks of these systems - DNA replication, gene expression, and the fundamental biological processes arose from simpler chemical and physical interactions that were likely governed by principles of self-assembly and thermodynamics. The primary drivers are different at different levels of abstraction and complexity, and there’s dynamic interaction across levels.

Thermodynamics -> Natural Selection -> Responsive (Epi)Genetics -> Memetics -> Metamemetics (probably?)

We “boil things down” to Natural Selection or Thermodynamics as is convenient for communication, but the higher levels affect the lower as well. So we can’t really reduce them like that without losing important information.

In our effort to disillusion people of the idea that evolution has a purpose or conscious hand, we over-simplify things, though. Plants actively (but not consciously) shape their own evolution through complex molecular and genetic mechanisms. They can respond to environmental stresses by altering their DNA methylation patterns, potentially priming future generations for similar conditions. Plants also engage in niche construction, modifying their surroundings in ways that influence their evolutionary trajectory. For instance, they can change soil chemistry through root exudates, creating new selective pressures for themselves and their offspring. Plants participate in intricate co-evolutionary relationships with pollinators, herbivores, and other organisms. These interactions create dynamic fitness landscapes that drive reciprocal evolutionary changes. While not “inventing” traits in a deliberate sense, plants possess sophisticated genetic tools - such as whole genome duplications, transposable elements, and adaptable gene networks - that allow for rapid evolutionary innovations. These mechanisms enable plants to continually adapt and evolve, even without conscious intent or direct feedback.

deleted by creator

Honestly, I’d get on-board with just about anytime 2000 to 2010. The enshittification of the internet and social-media-driven comment culture didn’t start in earnest until smart phones took off.

The year 2000 was peak human technology. It’s been downhill in every way since, until generative AI - which is f’in amazing. But let’s be real, the future belongs to the bots.

I appreciate one of the most concise explanations of that perspective I’ve ever read! This is actually the one I’d like to believe, but not the one I do. I disagree with the idea that “both sides are the same,” but I won’t go so far as to imagine Democrats are truly concerned with integrity to the degree that they’d sacrifices strategy. I’m afraid they’re just people, and people are all fucking stupid in their own way. It’s just some are fucking stupid and malicious.

You believe it’s the Dem’s that do the sabotaging, and that they are compromising to…themselves? Interesting.

Do you not believe they’re preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?

Ideogram, make my post an image.

<Ideogram> Sure thing boss!

Claude, re-write my post.

<Claude> Sure thing boss!

Generative AI fascinates me, and I use it frequently for both work and leisure. This photo, however, is the first to make me feel a twinge of sadness, as it reminds me that I now have to question the authenticity of everything I see.

Then I recall that even traditional photographs often undergo extensive post-processing, which somewhat alleviates my concern. To distract myself, I create an AI-generated video of the river flowing, momentarily forgetting my worries.

However, I can’t help but notice that many of these AI generations are of poor quality. Generative AI is simultaneously wonderful and troubling - a double-edged sword of technology.

Despite these mixed feelings, I must admit this is a beautiful photo.

I love generative A.I. I use it all the time, professionally and recreationally. This photo is the first to make me sad that I have to question the veracity of everything now. Then I remember the amount of post-processing a photo like this usually goes through and feel less sad. Then I make an AI video of the river flowing and forget what I was worried about. But all these generations are kinda trash. Such wonderful, terrible things. Beautiful photo, though.

/stares in smart glasses

WebP is a raster graphics file format developed by Google intended as a replacement for JPEG, PNG, and GIF file formats. It supports both lossy and lossless compression, as well as animation and alpha transparency. Google announced the WebP format in September 2010, and released the first stable version of its supporting library in April 2018.

The format has spotty support across applications and some vulnerabilities were discovered that required patch efforts last year. It’s not clear why you should do anything.

deleted by creator

Humans are really bad at determining whether a chat is with a human or a bot

Eliza is not indistinguishable from a human at 22%.

Passing the Turing test stood largely out of reach for 70 years precisely because Humans are pretty good at spotting counterfeit humans.

This is a monumental achievement.

As long as no one messes with their open source contributions… (ditto for MS)

To the one person who upvoted this: We should be friends.

Aye, I’d wager Claude would be closer to 58-60. And with the model probing Anthropic’s publishing, we could get to like ~63% on average in the next couple years? Those last few % will be difficult for an indeterminate amount of time, I imagine. But who knows. We’ve already blown by a ton of “limitations” that I thought I might not live long enough to see.

Participants only said other humans were human 67% of the time.

On the other hand, the human participant scored 67 percent, while GPT-3.5 scored 50 percent, and ELIZA, which was pre-programmed with responses and didn’t have an LLM to power it, was judged to be human just 22 percent of the time.

54% - 67% is the current gap, not 54 to 100.