this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
549 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

I wonder if it would take more or less time with auto-complete.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

Fuuuuck there goes my plan to get this monkey to write Hamlet within the lifetime of the universe...

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

I just listened to a podcast about assembly theory and I think that it kind of relates here too, though maybe not. If we start randomly generating text that is the lenght of the Hamlet, then Hamlet itself would be one of the possible, finite number of possibilities that could be generated within these parameters. Interesting theory nevertheless.

If we think about a screwdriver, the theory would argue that it couldn’t simply appear out of nowhere because its structure is too specific and complex to have come into existence by chance alone. For that screwdriver to exist, a multitude of precise processes are required: extracting raw materials, refining them, shaping metal, designing the handle, etc. The probability of all these steps happening in the right order, spontaneously, is essentially zero. Assembly theory would say that each stage in the creation of a screwdriver represents a selection event, where choices are made, materials are transformed, and functions are refined.

What makes assembly theory especially intriguing is that it offers a framework to distinguish between things that could arise naturally, like a rock or even an organic molecule, and things that bear the hallmarks of a directed process. To put it simply, a screwdriver couldn't exist without a long sequence of assembly steps that are improbable to arise by chance, thereby making its existence a hallmark of intentional design or, at the very least, a directed process.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Are spelling and punctuation expected to be accurate?

Their assumptions must be wrong. They do not account for the most basic principle of the universe, "the show must go on."

[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

Seems to not understand the thought experiment which is a way to contemplate infinity.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

They are, however, exceptionally adept at political speechwriting.

[–] Skoobie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Alright then. 2 monkeys... 3? 4? The answer has to be a number lol.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 3 weeks ago

Well it isn't 6.

From Wikipedia:

In 2002, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes crested macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon, England from May 1 to June 22, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website. Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter "S",the lead male began striking the keyboard with a stone, and other monkeys followed by urinating and defecating on the machine

Mike Phillips, director of the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technology (i-DAT), said that the artist-funded project was primarily performance art, and they had learned "an awful lot" from it. He concluded that monkeys "are not random generators. They're more complex than that

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›