Curious About:
Artificial Life
Minimal Cognition
Enactivism
https://www.academia.edu/25322905/Super_Bittorio_a_tribute_to_Francisco_Varela
Curious About:
Artificial Life
Minimal Cognition
Enactivism
https://www.academia.edu/25322905/Super_Bittorio_a_tribute_to_Francisco_Varela
Next stop for my article on AI (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07515): @CellSystemsCP.
Inquiring with the editors about the possibility of submitting it as a perspective.
Let's see how this goes...

What is the prospect of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI)? I investigate this question by systematically comparing living and algorithmic systems, with a special focus on the notion of "agency." There are three fundamental differences to consider: (1) Living systems are autopoietic, that is, self-manufacturing, and therefore able to set their own intrinsic goals, while algorithms exist in a computational environment with target functions that are both provided by an external agent. (2) Living systems are embodied in the sense that there is no separation between their symbolic and physical aspects, while algorithms run on computational architectures that maximally isolate software from hardware. (3) Living systems experience a large world, in which most problems are ill-defined (and not all definable), while algorithms exist in a small world, in which all problems are well-defined. These three differences imply that living and algorithmic systems have very different capabilities and limitations. In particular, it is extremely unlikely that true AGI (beyond mere mimicry) can be developed in the current algorithmic framework of AI research. Consequently, discussions about the proper development and deployment of algorithmic tools should be shaped around the dangers and opportunities of current narrow AI, not the extremely unlikely prospect of the emergence of true agency in artificial systems.
Very excited to host and participate in this workshop at @ALifeConf !!
https://www.nichele.eu/ALIFE-DistributedGhost/
And here is my two-page abstract:
https://www.nichele.eu/ALIFE-DistributedGhost/4-Sayama.pdf
This paper is finally out -- it was my true honor to be part of this fantastic international team
Our claim: The origins of behavior and organisms may be earlier than the origins of life
"Behaviour and the Origin of Organisms"
By Matthew Egbert et al.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-023-09635-0
It is common in origins of life research to view the first stages of life as the passive result of particular environmental conditions. This paper considers the alternative possibility: that the antecedents of life were already actively regulating their environment to maintain the conditions necessary for their own persistence. In support of this proposal, we describe ‘viability-based behaviour’: a way that simple entities can adaptively regulate their environment in response to their health, and in so doing, increase the likelihood of their survival. Drawing on empirical investigations of simple self-preserving abiological systems, we argue that these viability-based behaviours are simple enough to precede neo-Darwinian evolution. We also explain how their operation can reduce the demanding requirements that mainstream theories place upon the environment(s) in which life emerged.
Okay, so that AI letter signed by lots of AI researchers calling for a "Pause [on] Giant AI Experiments"? It's just dripping with AI hype. Here's a quick rundown.
First, for context, note that URL? The Future of Life Institute is a longtermist operation. You know, the people who are focused on maximizing the happiness of billions of future beings who live in computer simulations.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
>>