"all started with one single molecule that replicated itself."
Did it? I'm not a creationist but I don't think we have a full understanding of abiogenesis. I know your article is more towards AI but abiogenesis is an interesting topic (at least to me). Amino acid leads to RNA, cool, I can buy that. How does a cell form from that?
Good question, Leigh, and you're right- I'm not sure, and nobody is. The single cell idea is more conjecture at my end.
Part of the fun for me is to write about something challenging, and I often will uncover stuff like this, worthy of deeper dives. What kind of stuff on abiogenesis have you enjoyed?
I've just tried to find out what I can from online resources in the past. Evolution is cool, I get that. If there is a cell, I can piece together the development into multicellular life and from there, it's the theory of evolution to where we are today. But how did that first cell originate? Lipids are required for the membrane but when about the internal gubbins? There is a gap in the data to how we get from amino acids, which can occur naturally, to a cell. It involves nucleotides and RNA/DNA somehow but we aren't sure how they got from one stage to the next.
I have a question and it might be silly and I have done no prior research. But is it possible a cell traveled here on a meteorite. We put water bears on the moon, surely another cell could have survived the travel in space and made it here to multiply… or is my thinking totally off?
Yeah, this is called "panspermia", and it's a very cool idea! If you've ever seen the movie Prometheus, it's all about this. If you haven't seen it, I kind of just spoiled a little of it for you, but really not much. It's very good.
Panspermia ultimately just kicks the can down the road as to the origin of life, although it could explain how life got here... but biologists don't view this as a leading theory.
I think that's a useful way of thinking about it. I don't think technology really is that way, but I can see how helpful it could be to frame it as such. I also think "entity" is nebulous, but it really does describe a lot of our systems, like the internet itself.
If I take your article and I rewrite it using the same ideas, the same phrases, the same words, but I compose them differently and I use them in a way that is statistically effective based on a valid output parameter, am I creating something new? That is, did the one who invented DNA create life, or did the one who takes it, manipulates it, and recombines it create life?
You assume that an AI has a metabolism because it uses energy, but it actually uses the energy of its host, much like viruses, which do not have an autonomous life, nor can they metabolize food or reproduce on their own, but they can replicate themselves, like your LifeGPT.
Is it possible that we're not creating life, but a virus?
As I commented for another substack post on similar topic:
If we cannot define intelligence, I think we would have a hard time defining AGI, and if we cannot define AGI but keep on working towards something that we cannot define, there are two possibilities:
1. If scaling up continues to yield results, which I also doubt be the case, but for the current discussion, assume that is the case, we will sooner or later cross a threshold that we do not comprehend and have no idea where it will lead us, an intelligence that will kill us, an intelligence that would rule us or an intelligence that would start a war with other AGIs built by other companies, or intelligence that would help us live the best life we can dream off. We should never discount an optimistic scenario, even though the chances of that happening may be small.
In the second scenario, we will improve slowly. It would take centuries and new hardware/algorithms to get to human-level intelligence (and I hope we can define what it means). It could lead to several AGI winters as the world will move onto new hypes and return to AGI when new hardware/algorithms show significant improvements. However, I see a good possibility that we will have several narrow intelligence products filling a specific niche(s) but nothing that we could call human-level intelligence.
I want to see more discussions at all levels and articles on what would happen and what humans can or will do in case we ever reach human-level intelligence, as it would be too late to start thinking about it if we ever get there, even by mistake. Right now, we have too extreme camps. One camp
is all about we will all be dead, and the second camp is all about we will be living in a utopia. I think the reality may lie somewhere in the middle, as most of the time. I am not saying we do not explore extreme scenarios. However, we need to be ready for a more likely scenario where most of the jobs will be automated, and humans will have plenty of free time, or jobs will be available but are not very highly motivating. How do we continue to grow as a species and society? How do we keep ourselves busy/occupied (rather than living in the metaverse or virtual reality)? What does it mean to education and the concept of state/country and economy? Also, we do not try to build a society that goes back to kings and everyone else, where 1% controls the AI and indirectly controls the world.
I don't know just how close we are to creating "life" in the form of AGI, but I know that no matter what AGI ends up being, it'll never be nearly as adorable as the term "moss piglets." Which begs the question: Why even try?
Then they'll inevitably get sued for scraping the genetic signature of real moss piglets and infringing on their copyright (right to copy themselves). We've seen this story play out before.
"all started with one single molecule that replicated itself."
Did it? I'm not a creationist but I don't think we have a full understanding of abiogenesis. I know your article is more towards AI but abiogenesis is an interesting topic (at least to me). Amino acid leads to RNA, cool, I can buy that. How does a cell form from that?
Good question, Leigh, and you're right- I'm not sure, and nobody is. The single cell idea is more conjecture at my end.
Part of the fun for me is to write about something challenging, and I often will uncover stuff like this, worthy of deeper dives. What kind of stuff on abiogenesis have you enjoyed?
I've just tried to find out what I can from online resources in the past. Evolution is cool, I get that. If there is a cell, I can piece together the development into multicellular life and from there, it's the theory of evolution to where we are today. But how did that first cell originate? Lipids are required for the membrane but when about the internal gubbins? There is a gap in the data to how we get from amino acids, which can occur naturally, to a cell. It involves nucleotides and RNA/DNA somehow but we aren't sure how they got from one stage to the next.
Let me know if you'd be interested in collaborating a little on a piece focusing on exactly this. I think this could be a really fun/useful deep dive.
I would!
Fantastic. Let's get something together via email or messenger (no rush!).
I have a question and it might be silly and I have done no prior research. But is it possible a cell traveled here on a meteorite. We put water bears on the moon, surely another cell could have survived the travel in space and made it here to multiply… or is my thinking totally off?
Yeah, this is called "panspermia", and it's a very cool idea! If you've ever seen the movie Prometheus, it's all about this. If you haven't seen it, I kind of just spoiled a little of it for you, but really not much. It's very good.
Panspermia ultimately just kicks the can down the road as to the origin of life, although it could explain how life got here... but biologists don't view this as a leading theory.
Oh, I see, and that’s okay! I’m going to look it up and watch it. 😊
I'm reading up on this now. Hopefully Andrew will put a post together soon with some input from me.
Great question. Another topic to think about.
Stretch my mind and thus my day ! Thank you
Yes!
Very interesting read. Deep! Sometimes I believe technology is an alien life form in a symbiotic relationship with humanity - an entity of sorts.
I think that's a useful way of thinking about it. I don't think technology really is that way, but I can see how helpful it could be to frame it as such. I also think "entity" is nebulous, but it really does describe a lot of our systems, like the internet itself.
Really a thought-provoking piece. I loved it.
I will try an answer.
If I take your article and I rewrite it using the same ideas, the same phrases, the same words, but I compose them differently and I use them in a way that is statistically effective based on a valid output parameter, am I creating something new? That is, did the one who invented DNA create life, or did the one who takes it, manipulates it, and recombines it create life?
You assume that an AI has a metabolism because it uses energy, but it actually uses the energy of its host, much like viruses, which do not have an autonomous life, nor can they metabolize food or reproduce on their own, but they can replicate themselves, like your LifeGPT.
Is it possible that we're not creating life, but a virus?
Great point about the virus! Reframing this through just that lens alone would be fun.
I'd love to read a piece by you on this then!
I'm here to chew gum and steal ideas, and it's too early for gum. Yoink!
:-D
As I commented for another substack post on similar topic:
If we cannot define intelligence, I think we would have a hard time defining AGI, and if we cannot define AGI but keep on working towards something that we cannot define, there are two possibilities:
1. If scaling up continues to yield results, which I also doubt be the case, but for the current discussion, assume that is the case, we will sooner or later cross a threshold that we do not comprehend and have no idea where it will lead us, an intelligence that will kill us, an intelligence that would rule us or an intelligence that would start a war with other AGIs built by other companies, or intelligence that would help us live the best life we can dream off. We should never discount an optimistic scenario, even though the chances of that happening may be small.
In the second scenario, we will improve slowly. It would take centuries and new hardware/algorithms to get to human-level intelligence (and I hope we can define what it means). It could lead to several AGI winters as the world will move onto new hypes and return to AGI when new hardware/algorithms show significant improvements. However, I see a good possibility that we will have several narrow intelligence products filling a specific niche(s) but nothing that we could call human-level intelligence.
Yeah, defining "intelligence" or "life" or "consciousness".... we just don't know how to do that.
I want to see more discussions at all levels and articles on what would happen and what humans can or will do in case we ever reach human-level intelligence, as it would be too late to start thinking about it if we ever get there, even by mistake. Right now, we have too extreme camps. One camp
is all about we will all be dead, and the second camp is all about we will be living in a utopia. I think the reality may lie somewhere in the middle, as most of the time. I am not saying we do not explore extreme scenarios. However, we need to be ready for a more likely scenario where most of the jobs will be automated, and humans will have plenty of free time, or jobs will be available but are not very highly motivating. How do we continue to grow as a species and society? How do we keep ourselves busy/occupied (rather than living in the metaverse or virtual reality)? What does it mean to education and the concept of state/country and economy? Also, we do not try to build a society that goes back to kings and everyone else, where 1% controls the AI and indirectly controls the world.
These are good questions, and we should all be talking about them more.
Evolution: Nature's ultimate A/B test.
I don't know just how close we are to creating "life" in the form of AGI, but I know that no matter what AGI ends up being, it'll never be nearly as adorable as the term "moss piglets." Which begs the question: Why even try?
Someone will eventually come up with AMPs (Artificial Moss Piglets). Until that day, I will reserve judgment.
Then they'll inevitably get sued for scraping the genetic signature of real moss piglets and infringing on their copyright (right to copy themselves). We've seen this story play out before.
My article from June 2025: "Tardigrades Take the Stand"