Let me explain this discussion a little bit. I originally asked chatGPT to write a critical review of the attached text. And you can try too. In my opinion, the smartest thing the robot said was that we should ask biologists. That's why I'm asking. I included all the biologists on the list in the discussion. And you can include them too. We are looking for a biologist. Like Darwin. Darwin's superhuman intuition helped him. Without knowing anything about, say, molecular biology. To figure it out anyway. How living things evolve. We need someone like him. But cooler. So that he can also explain what it looks like mathematically. We will immediately program it on artificial neural networks. And politicians will immediately give us a trillion bucks.

Something tells me. That you are not such brilliant biologists as Darwin. And anyway, we will not find such a genius. If we find: then everything is simple. We will sharply program his ideas, our artificial intelligence will discard all the current ones, and we will divide a trillion bucks fraternally. What to do if we do not find? Let's say you are sitting somewhere underground. And in deep secrecy you are increasing your defense capability. In Nevada or in the Karakum Desert. It does not matter. What is the specificity of defense capability? In the fact that at least the goal itself is not classified. As in peaceful life. The goal is frankly idiotic and not secret. Therefore, it is possible. By improving artificial intelligence. Organize a quick gradient calculation for the Excel solver. It is very simple there. Maybe Feynman's best students have already done this in underground Nevada. They just classified it. Then it can be used for peaceful purposes. All that is needed is for the commanders to admit what their goal is.

Preprint Biophysics of intelligence and physics of intelligent system...

- Некоторые количественные версии эволюции интеллектуальных систем. Кое-что, в сжатом виде в научном журнале: Article К биофизике эволюции интеллектуальных систем

Спасибо конечно, Алекскей. Но это вроде не то что можно запрограммировать. Ламарк вот тоже говорил. Что в основе стремление к совершенству. И может был прав. Но. Как это запрограммировать. Вот Дарвина легко запрограммировать. Алгоритм случайного поиска. Запрограммировал и убедился. Что Дарвин не работает. От слова совсем. Скорости не те. Расхождение минимум в миллиарды раз. Для простых еще случаев. Для мозга человека гораздо больше.

If you know someone who can, in the traditional style of objective science, refute the conclusions of this discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Darwinism_the_Watson-Crick_hypothesis_and_mathematics_are_they_compatible : let him try to do it publicly. It would be interesting.

For now, it seems to me that the topic is closed. I have spread this quite widely.

Of course, this means that the "center of progress" is, alas, not in the "modern highly developed countries". By the way, and not in Russia and Canada where I live. I do not even exclude. That all this is happening in a "planned manner". Somewhere, some "real yogi" or "advanced monk" sits and watches over the situation in accordance with the "cosmic harmony".

If I were in the commanders' place, I would not be too upset. After all, none of their insidious earthly enemies have won or will win for long. The real situation seems to be even better than all these victories. Nobody killed anyone seriously, it seems. A fight between children in a sandbox.

You see. Even "objective science" has reached a certain level.