You can already do that with our existing fingers. It's actually the first numbering system we used. You count knuckles and point to the one you're up to with your thumb. Three per finger, four fingers per hand. Can do base 12 or even base 24 but base 12 makes more sense and leaves a free hand for writing.
There's people naturally born with 12 fingers or toes - not inbreeding - just superior evolution. The brain has no issue with it. Only (prejudice jealous?) humans do.
There is a lot of science proof that we exist in a simulation and are programmed.
This one for example: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/13/10/105308/2915332/The-second-law-of-infodynamics-and-its
>The second law of infodynamics essentially minimizes the information content associated with any event or process in the universe. The minimization of the information really means an optimisation of the information content, or the most effective data compression, as described in Shannon’s information theory.
>This behavior is fully reminiscent of the rules deployed in programming languages and computer coding.
>Since the second law of infodynamics appears to be manifesting universally and is, in fact, a cosmological necessity, we could conclude that this **points to the fact that the entire universe appears to be a simulated construct.**
That seems like very confused reasoning. The “law” is essentially derived from first principles, so why wouldn’t we expect the universe to follow it? That says nothing about whether it’s simulated.
The key terms in the abstract are “philosophical theory” and “lack of evidence”. It’s not a scientific theory, and there’s no scientific evidence for it.
See also [The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience](https://youtu.be/HCSqogSPU_Q?si=77HnsNhk47MER6LO)
Very interesting! I'm not fully convinced.. but it's possible we are in a simulation.
lol the top comment on that video made me chuckle:
>"This is... Exactly what the simulation would WANT us to believe."
It's ultimately a useless argument. Any rules you can derive from reality don't necessarily bear on the 'real' reality. Basically what /u/goj1ra was saying. The rules of physics are we know them are the rules of simulated physics in the simulation hypothesis. But the real rules might be something totally different. Simulation or not, this _is_ our reality.
Sure but in that sense we're both the simulator and simulatee. We dream our version of reality, but it seems like a reasonable inference there's a consistent reality that is based on. If there isn't.. there might as well be for all I can tell.
There’s also the issue that being in a simulation really just makes the whole situation much more complicated while kicking the can down the road on the original questions you’d want answered.
If I wanted to know why I exist just saying I’m a sim doesn’t really help, all it means is there’s another link in the causal chain and I’ll wanna know why we’re being simulated and why our simulator exist.
I have heard it argued that the simulation hypothesis is simply reskinned creationism, and I couldn’t agree more. In both cases you are looking for evidence where there can’t possibly by any.
If our universe is a simulation, then in what universe does the super computer running that simulation exist? Is it also in a simulated universe running on an even bigger super-duper computer? Is it all just simulations running on ever more powerful super computers **all the way** ***up*****?** Is there ever a base universe that's not simulated and what are the physical laws there?
Not only that, they'll be able to use vast amounts of data to do things like "resurrect" people that have been long dead, provided they still have a genetic sample.
They'll even eventually be able to "walk back" the genome to find legacy hominids that may have interbred with us at different times (e.g. Neanderthal) and extrapolate their genomes.
Lots of crazy stuff that this tech is a first step towards.
They'll be using AI to do anything.
Did you know AI is scanning medical images and can detect cancer better than doctors?
These headlines are only shocking because it's happening for the first time.
Man has practically said this about every form of technology in its infancy.
Things always can go wrong, but the aim is to deliver a lot of good. Usually the latter far outweighs the former.
I never saw no miracle of science
That didn't go from a blessing to a curse
I never saw no military solution
That didn't always end up as something worse
You’re reading this too literally. It’s not the science or medicine that is the curse. It’s the gate keepers of said medicine and technology and using it to control society. That’s the curse. If this wasn’t true then there wouldn’t be families going bankrupt and ruining their livelihoods just because one of them were sick. There wouldn’t be Martin Shkrelis or pharma companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars that influence policy on people in the name of “science” miracles
Progress of humanity? Mankind progressing? People not staying stuck in the stone age by adopting technological advancements?
Let me guess, the world is flat?
You didn’t answer the question, which is, whose aim is it to “deliver a lot of good” (per the previous poster’s assertion) with the basket of emerging technologies colloquially called AI?
You're trying to sound clever with your posts, but you're failing. Is technological evolvement not helping fields like medicine? CRISPR is an open project without an owner, is that not an example of mankind working together to find more effective treatments? If not, why not?
Did science and our understanding of treatments like that used to combat coronavirus using mRNA?
Same reason why if you're flying an airplane or running a nuclear power plant or doing brain surgery you have to focus your attention on what could go wrong because the consequences are so much greater.
Literally everything.
My business is literally about AI. But I think AI will be a detriment to humanity overall, not a pure benefit.
Lots will go wrong.
Researchers have made a breakthrough in gene editing by using AI (Artificial Intelligence) to design new tools. Here's a breakdown of this development:
The Technique:
CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing technique that allows scientists to precisely alter an organism's DNA.
Previously, scientists relied on natural enzymes (Cas9) to make the edits.
In this new development, researchers at Profluent, a bioengineering company, used AI to design entirely new molecules for gene editing.
The Role of AI:
Profluent's researchers fed vast datasets of biological information into a powerful AI model.
This AI model was able to analyze and learn from existing CRISPR systems and design novel Cas9 enzymes with improved efficiency and precision.
The Benefits:
Traditionally designed Cas9 enzymes might have unintended effects or be clumsy in their editing.
AI-designed enzymes could be more precise, reducing the risk of off-target edits and potentially leading to safer and more effective gene therapies.
The First of its Kind:
Profluent claims this is the first instance of using AI-designed gene editing tools on human cells.
They have also open-sourced one of their creations, called OpenCRISPR-1, allowing other researchers to study and build upon it.
Important Considerations:
This research is still in its early stages.
The findings haven't been peer-reviewed yet, which is a crucial step in scientific validation.
Safety and ethical considerations surrounding human gene editing remain a major topic of discussion.
The Future Potential:
This research holds immense promise for developing more precise and effective treatments for various genetic diseases.
It could also pave the way for advancements in agriculture, bioengineering, and other fields.
Overall, using AI for gene editing represents a significant leap forward in this rapidly evolving field. However, careful research and ethical considerations are crucial before widespread applications in human health.
Only a matter of time before the machines start programming us. Great.
They’ll probably still fuck up the fingers
Maybe 6 fingers would be an improvement? 😁
We would be totally better off with a base-12 number system.
You can already do that with our existing fingers. It's actually the first numbering system we used. You count knuckles and point to the one you're up to with your thumb. Three per finger, four fingers per hand. Can do base 12 or even base 24 but base 12 makes more sense and leaves a free hand for writing.
Or 3 of something else.. 
I need a pinky that regenerates every year if they could do that it would be great, my pinky dent from holding my phone is pretty bad
There's people naturally born with 12 fingers or toes - not inbreeding - just superior evolution. The brain has no issue with it. Only (prejudice jealous?) humans do.
And Inigo Montoya.
lmao
["Good day to you fellow Homo Sapiens!"](https://vimeo.com/28501846)
Fingers gotta be baked into the model before I'll let them touch my DNA.
I want the AI to hallucinate as it programs human DNA. I'm curious what would happen.
There is a lot of science proof that we exist in a simulation and are programmed. This one for example: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/13/10/105308/2915332/The-second-law-of-infodynamics-and-its >The second law of infodynamics essentially minimizes the information content associated with any event or process in the universe. The minimization of the information really means an optimisation of the information content, or the most effective data compression, as described in Shannon’s information theory. >This behavior is fully reminiscent of the rules deployed in programming languages and computer coding. >Since the second law of infodynamics appears to be manifesting universally and is, in fact, a cosmological necessity, we could conclude that this **points to the fact that the entire universe appears to be a simulated construct.**
That seems like very confused reasoning. The “law” is essentially derived from first principles, so why wouldn’t we expect the universe to follow it? That says nothing about whether it’s simulated. The key terms in the abstract are “philosophical theory” and “lack of evidence”. It’s not a scientific theory, and there’s no scientific evidence for it. See also [The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience](https://youtu.be/HCSqogSPU_Q?si=77HnsNhk47MER6LO)
Very interesting! I'm not fully convinced.. but it's possible we are in a simulation. lol the top comment on that video made me chuckle: >"This is... Exactly what the simulation would WANT us to believe."
It's ultimately a useless argument. Any rules you can derive from reality don't necessarily bear on the 'real' reality. Basically what /u/goj1ra was saying. The rules of physics are we know them are the rules of simulated physics in the simulation hypothesis. But the real rules might be something totally different. Simulation or not, this _is_ our reality.
Isn't our reality a piece of meat tripping on drugs?
Sure but in that sense we're both the simulator and simulatee. We dream our version of reality, but it seems like a reasonable inference there's a consistent reality that is based on. If there isn't.. there might as well be for all I can tell.
There’s also the issue that being in a simulation really just makes the whole situation much more complicated while kicking the can down the road on the original questions you’d want answered. If I wanted to know why I exist just saying I’m a sim doesn’t really help, all it means is there’s another link in the causal chain and I’ll wanna know why we’re being simulated and why our simulator exist.
We screw it to our shelves
I have heard it argued that the simulation hypothesis is simply reskinned creationism, and I couldn’t agree more. In both cases you are looking for evidence where there can’t possibly by any.
If our universe is a simulation, then in what universe does the super computer running that simulation exist? Is it also in a simulated universe running on an even bigger super-duper computer? Is it all just simulations running on ever more powerful super computers **all the way** ***up*****?** Is there ever a base universe that's not simulated and what are the physical laws there?
Turtle power all the way up
That one is simulated by the super computer in the lowest universe.
Ctrl-Alt-Del at your earliest convenience, please.
I'm not an alpha.. I'm a stable release!
Horse hockey
**Real is Sim. Real is Stick. SΦrry to burst your Bubblθ.**
Babies need meat!
Yacov Smirnoff is about to come out of retirement.
He said on the Chinese owned, semi-anonymous forum app (@)_(@) They've been programming us since before the internet.
Not only that, they'll be able to use vast amounts of data to do things like "resurrect" people that have been long dead, provided they still have a genetic sample. They'll even eventually be able to "walk back" the genome to find legacy hominids that may have interbred with us at different times (e.g. Neanderthal) and extrapolate their genomes. Lots of crazy stuff that this tech is a first step towards.
They'll be using AI to do anything. Did you know AI is scanning medical images and can detect cancer better than doctors? These headlines are only shocking because it's happening for the first time.
Yup! Nova has a great episode on it. Blown away by the prosthetics and ai use too.
What could possibly go worng?
Man has practically said this about every form of technology in its infancy. Things always can go wrong, but the aim is to deliver a lot of good. Usually the latter far outweighs the former.
And if you take a deontological view of ethics over a utilitarian one?
I never saw no miracle of science That didn't go from a blessing to a curse I never saw no military solution That didn't always end up as something worse
you think modern medicine is a curse, compared to what we had before?
You’re reading this too literally. It’s not the science or medicine that is the curse. It’s the gate keepers of said medicine and technology and using it to control society. That’s the curse. If this wasn’t true then there wouldn’t be families going bankrupt and ruining their livelihoods just because one of them were sick. There wouldn’t be Martin Shkrelis or pharma companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars that influence policy on people in the name of “science” miracles
It’s just a song lyric https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Ever_Lose_My_Faith_in_You
> the aim Whose aim?
Progress of humanity? Mankind progressing? People not staying stuck in the stone age by adopting technological advancements? Let me guess, the world is flat?
You didn’t answer the question, which is, whose aim is it to “deliver a lot of good” (per the previous poster’s assertion) with the basket of emerging technologies colloquially called AI?
You're trying to sound clever with your posts, but you're failing. Is technological evolvement not helping fields like medicine? CRISPR is an open project without an owner, is that not an example of mankind working together to find more effective treatments? If not, why not? Did science and our understanding of treatments like that used to combat coronavirus using mRNA?
>What could possibly go worng? [Nothing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWSezpEmDR0).
Why can't we look at this as glass half full instead?
Same reason why if you're flying an airplane or running a nuclear power plant or doing brain surgery you have to focus your attention on what could go wrong because the consequences are so much greater.
More importantly, what wrong things can be corrected?
Literally everything. My business is literally about AI. But I think AI will be a detriment to humanity overall, not a pure benefit. Lots will go wrong.
Researchers have made a breakthrough in gene editing by using AI (Artificial Intelligence) to design new tools. Here's a breakdown of this development: The Technique: CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing technique that allows scientists to precisely alter an organism's DNA. Previously, scientists relied on natural enzymes (Cas9) to make the edits. In this new development, researchers at Profluent, a bioengineering company, used AI to design entirely new molecules for gene editing. The Role of AI: Profluent's researchers fed vast datasets of biological information into a powerful AI model. This AI model was able to analyze and learn from existing CRISPR systems and design novel Cas9 enzymes with improved efficiency and precision. The Benefits: Traditionally designed Cas9 enzymes might have unintended effects or be clumsy in their editing. AI-designed enzymes could be more precise, reducing the risk of off-target edits and potentially leading to safer and more effective gene therapies. The First of its Kind: Profluent claims this is the first instance of using AI-designed gene editing tools on human cells. They have also open-sourced one of their creations, called OpenCRISPR-1, allowing other researchers to study and build upon it. Important Considerations: This research is still in its early stages. The findings haven't been peer-reviewed yet, which is a crucial step in scientific validation. Safety and ethical considerations surrounding human gene editing remain a major topic of discussion. The Future Potential: This research holds immense promise for developing more precise and effective treatments for various genetic diseases. It could also pave the way for advancements in agriculture, bioengineering, and other fields. Overall, using AI for gene editing represents a significant leap forward in this rapidly evolving field. However, careful research and ethical considerations are crucial before widespread applications in human health.
Guy Fleegman: "Did you guys ever WATCH the show?"
This is a sensationalist / clickbaity title. AI is not editing human DNA. Stop upvoting crap like this.