The current state of AI

[Shabdahbriah]

nvm

[BONES]

There is a common misunderstanding of what 'survival of the fittest' means.

Yes, and you are displaying it right here.

'Fittest' means most adaptable to change.

No, that's not it at all. What it means is survival of those that fit the environment best. e.g. More resistant to disease, best adapted to their climate (which is why Caucasians tend to have narrower nostrils than people of African descent, for example) or best able to deal with predators.

The changes happen over tens of thousands of years, it's not about adapting from day to day. It's a long game where one individual will be infinitesimally more likely to survive to pass on his or her better adapted genes. Over time that tiny, almost imperceptible advantage means that more people with it survive, and more without it die off before they can pass it on. If that trend continues for ten thousand years, eventually the surviving population will all have that genetic advantage.

e.g. In a group of people, a tribe or whatever, the person who can run fastest will be more likely not to get eaten. So the slowest runners will be more likely to die before they can pass on their slow running genes. Or maybe they'll die after breeding a couple of children, where the fast runner lives long enough to have four kids. If the trend continues, in the next generation there will be twice as many people with the fast running genetics than the slow. In the generation after that, it will be 4 times as many, then 8, then 16 and so, until the last of the slow runners is eaten before they can pass on their slow running genetic make-up. But the adaptation takes much longer than that to propagate, so the process is much slower than I have illustrated. But you should get the idea.

Today humanity has isolated itself from all those factors that drive natural selection. Nobody gets eaten and the Nanny State does its best to ensure that even the most unfit to survive reach a ripe old age.

[stratology]

There is so much nonsense in your post that I don't even know where to start.

Maybe here:

e.g. In a group of people, a tribe or whatever, the person who can run fastest will be more likely not to get eaten. So the slowest runners will be more likely to die before they can pass on their slow running genes.

On average, males run faster than females. If your interpretation of the mutation/selection mechanism was right, humanity would have died out, because all the females were eaten before reproducing, because they run too slowly.


One of the few things you got right is that evolution happens slowly, over very long time spans - which directly contradicts your earlier post.

[Tiles]

There is so much nonsense in your post that I don't even know where to start.

Maybe here:

e.g. In a group of people, a tribe or whatever, the person who can run fastest will be more likely not to get eaten. So the slowest runners will be more likely to die before they can pass on their slow running genes.

On average, males run faster than females. If your interpretation of the mutation/selection mechanism was right, humanity would have died out, because all the females were eaten before reproducing, because they run too slowly.


One of the few things you got right is that evolution happens slowly, over very long time spans - which directly contradicts your earlier post.

Selection doesn’t require that all slower individuals die. It only requires that, on average, individuals with certain traits reproduce slightly more successfully than others. Even if males are faster on average, that doesn’t mean females are “too slow to survive.” It just means there may be different optimal traits for each sex.

There are a few key points:

First, survival isn’t determined by speed alone. Factors like awareness, cooperation, environment, and strategy matter just as much. Early humans didn’t rely purely on outrunning predators.

Second, males and females often face different evolutionary pressures. This is called Sexual Dimorphism. For example, males might benefit more from speed (competition, hunting), while females might benefit more from endurance, energy efficiency, or traits related to childbirth and survival.

Third, humans are a social species. Group behavior, protection, and cooperation reduce individual risk. Evolution in humans is heavily shaped by social structures, not just raw physical ability.

Finally, evolution works on populations over time, not all-or-nothing scenarios. A small average difference in speed doesn’t translate into one group being wiped out.

So the premise “slower females would all be eaten” simply doesn’t match how real evolutionary systems operate.

[Tiles]

double post, sorry, I cannot count anymore know how often edit tricked me here ...

[BONES]

On average, males run faster than females.

But females are vital for reproduction, so the males who looked after the females had a reproductive advantage over those who were happy to let the females be eaten. Over generations the proclivity for looking after females meant those males had more opportunity to pass their genetic advantage onto the next generation, while those who let the females be eaten eventually died out. So now you know where chivalry comes from. It evolved as a survival strategy. Kinda cool, huh?

[stratology]

slower individuals

Being a slower runner is what Darwin was referring to when he said 'it's not the strongest that survive'.

[stratology]

the males who looked after the females

Oh no. Please, please stop. No.



No.

[BONES]

What, you think that's a construct of modern society? It is common in successful species throughout the animal kingdom. We're not immune.

[stratology]

What, you think that's a construct of modern society?

Collaboration and communication.

The invention of written language enabled preservation and accumulation of knowledge, and the possibility to widely communicate it.

If you look at typical products of modern society, like a smartphone: there is not a single person on the planet who completely understands a smartphone. There are people who completely understand the glass chemistry, the networking stack, the metallurgy, the OS kernel, how to build a manufacturing plant - but no one who has a complete understanding of everything involved. Not possible.

This can only be done by wide ranging, global collaboration and communication.

-------

When you're a 6 year old kid at school, you learn pretty quickly that girls are equally good at everything as boys are. There are minor physical differences - like I mentioned earlier, males can on average run a little faster than females. It's a small difference, nothing compared to the difference to species who can actually run fast (e.g. Cheetah at 120km/h).
And every single female professional runner runs faster than 99% of the males on the planet.


I have never ever in my life met a woman who needs to be protected by a man. Never.

I have met countless men who express their undiagnosed, untreated insecurities by pretending they have to protect women. Sometimes women kindly allow them to live in that delusion, while rolling their eyes when the guys turn their backs.


Technology has made physical strength in men completely irrelevant.
You can have the strongest hunk, give a 5 year old girl a gun, and she can blow his head off.
Fill a town with the strongest, chest thumping dudes, the smallest nuke can turn them all into dust in a fraction of a second.
Put the fastest male runner on the planet up against a teen girl in a 'rrari and see who's laughing.
Every robot factory that manufactures cars - to name just one example - can accomplish any task with more physical strength and precision than any man.


Technology has made physical strength irrelevant.
Men who have nothing else to offer are in crisis mode. They are expressing it in countless, increasingly weird ways, and lashing out.
These displays of insecurity are really, really embarrassing for the rest of us men.

[BONES]

There are minor physical differences - like I mentioned earlier, males can on average run a little faster than females.

Dimorphism in humans is pronounced. Males are larger and stronger and testosterone makes them far more aggressive, as is the case with most mammals.

It's a small difference, nothing compared to the difference to species who can actually run fast (e.g. Cheetah at 120km/h).

Actually, male cheetahs are slightly faster than females - 113km/h against 105km/h. The sexual dimorphism of big cats is as pronounced as it is in humans.

And every single female professional runner runs faster than 99% of the males on the planet.

But will never be able to run as fast as any male who undertakes the same level of training. The men's world record for the 100m is more than one second faster than the female world record which is a massive difference. Serina Williams said she would lose in straight sets to any Top 10 male tennis player.

I have never ever in my life met a woman who needs to be protected by a man. Never.

Which just goes to my point that evolution by natural selection in humans has ceased. Do you think it would have applied 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? By your own admission females can't run as fast so natural selection suggests they'd all eventually have been eaten by predators and we'd have died out. But like other herd animals, we evolved to look after one another. It was a winning trait that eventually won out in thousands of species.

You can't look at individual traits in isolation, you have to see it holistically. Do you know, for example, why humans on the African plains rose to become the dominant predator? It wasn't just intelligence or co-operation, it was something much less obvious but absolutely crucial. Humans have sweat glands, most predators do not. That meant that even though humans weren't the fastest or strongest predator, they had endurance and could chase down any felid or canid predator. Cheetahs can't run marathons, humans can.

I have met countless men who express their undiagnosed, untreated insecurities by pretending they have to protect women. Sometimes women kindly allow them to live in that delusion, while rolling their eyes when the guys turn their backs.


Technology has made physical strength in men completely irrelevant.
You can have the strongest hunk, give a 5 year old girl a gun, and she can blow his head off.

S f**king what? We're not talking about that, FFS. Are you so mentally challenged that you can't separate these two completely different arguments? It is a complete waste of time discussing anything with someone so demonstrably incapable of rational thought.

Fill a town with the strongest, chest thumping dudes, the smallest nuke can turn them all into dust in a fraction of a second.

And who created nukes? Men.

Put the fastest male runner on the planet up against a teen girl in a 'rrari and see who's laughing.

And who invented the internal combustion engine? Men. Where does Ferrari get it's name? From the man who started the company. Motor racing is actually an interesting sport in this context. It's been open to female drivers for decades but there are pretty much none at the top level of motorsport. It's something females don't seem to be very good at, which is possibly (and I am speculating here) because of their poor spatial ability and slightly slower reflexes.

Every robot factory that manufactures cars - to name just one example - can accomplish any task with more physical strength and precision than any man.

Only because they were designed and built by men to do so. A certain level of laziness is a winning trait in evolution.

Technology has made physical strength irrelevant.

But we're not discussing technology we were talking about Evolution by Natural Selection. Get your head out of your f**king arse.

[stratology]

evolution by natural selection in humans has ceased.

But we're not discussing technology

I apologize, I was under the, obviously entirely incorrect, impression that this was a thread about AI technology.

[Bunny_boy]

Evolution by natural selection in humans has ceased? I posted two examples earlier - the people of St Kilda (the island, not the hipsters) and the people in the Andes (and other places at high altitude)

[BONES]

In that case, I'd love to hear how some of the stupid things you said, like the quote below, pertain to the topic.

On average, males run faster than females. If your interpretation of the mutation/selection mechanism was right, humanity would have died out, because all the females were eaten before reproducing, because they run too slowly.

[WillTurnerFLA]

Do people feel there's a solid ethical different between Agentic AI in music production for doing automated tasks, versus Generative AI - which is obviously just ripping of musicians.