Reality doesn't have a distinction between "code" and "data"; those are categories of convenience, and don't even have a proper definition (what is code and what is data depends on who's asking and why). Any such distinction requires mechanically enforcing it; AI won't have it, because it's not natural, and adding it destroys generality of the model.

▲

djaouen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

OK, then sequence your DNA and send it to me. I will make sure to use it as code!

▲

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Haha. But DNA is a very good example of what I'm talking about. It's both "code" and "data" at the same time - or rather, a perfect demonstration that these concepts don't exist in nature.

▲

djaouen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but for me to use your DNA as code would be a major malfunction!

	▲	TeMPOraL 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I get the joke, but it's also an incredibly interesting topic to ponder. Remember "Reflections on Trusting Trust"? Now consider that DNA itself needs a complex biomolecular machine to "compile" it into cells and organisms, and that this also embeds in them copies of the "compiler" itself. This raises the question of whether, and how much, information needed to build the organism is not explicitly encoded anywhere in the DNA itself, and instead accumulates in the replication mechanism and gets carried over implicitly. So for you to successfully use my DNA as code, without also borrowing the compiler from my body, would be a major scientific result, shining light on the questions outlined above. So in short: I'm happy to contribute my DNA if you cite me as co-author on the resulting paper :P.