this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
36 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
1 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
36
Why Yudkowsky is wrong about "covalently bonded equivalents of biology" (titotal.substack.com)
submitted 11 months ago by titotal@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
NSFW 50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is my article on one of the dumbest and most obviously false claims Yudkowsky has ever made, about biology not using covalent bonds.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GorillasAreForEating@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

His argument, as I understand it, is that he knew about the covalent bonds between proteins but didn't mention them because he was simplifying things for a lay audience, and that those covalent bonds don't matter because they aren't the "load bearing" elements in flesh.

There are two problems I see

  1. His earlier statements suggest he actually had no knowledge of that whatsoever

  2. I think his revised explanation is still wrong, because the extracellular matrix that holds cells together and connective tissue are composed largely of proteins that have these covalent crosslinks and rely on them for strength. When you tear a ligment it's not just van der waals and hydrogen bonds being broken, those alone would be far too weak.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What I mean specifically is, he wrote:

The nanomachinery builds diamondoid bacteria, that replicate with solar power and atmospheric CHON, maybe aggregate into some miniature rockets or jets so they can ride the jetstream to spread across the Earth's atmosphere, get into human bloodstreams and hide, strike on a timer.

Would "diamondoid bacteria" be inherently, significantly better at killing us? Or wait is he imagining the bacteria literally slashing at us???

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

From what I could understand is that he talks about diamondoid (and these other things) just because he has read one book about the subject. ‘Nanosystems’ by Drexler apparantly. (Never read it, can't say anything about it).

I'm not sure Yud is really engaging with what is being said vs just going on and on about how AGI can kill us all via nanomachines (son), because handwave theory something.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's like he heard the phrase "flesh-eating bacteria" and decided they would be more scarier if they had tiny knives and forks.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The worst part is when they start to season you with salt and pepper...