MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284894033 · doi:10.1017/s1473550422000246

Curbing the fruitfulness of self-replicating machines

2022· article· en· W4284894033 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Ellery

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Astrobiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)Computer sciencePopulationProcess (computing)GalaxyExponential growthDistributed computingPhysicsBiologyAstrophysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The self-replicating machine has high utility by virtue of its universal construction properties and its productive capacity for exponential growth. Their capacity is unrivalled. They can be deployed to the Moon to industrialize it using local in-situ resources in the short term to open up the solar system and thence deployed on interstellar spacecraft to explore the entire Galaxy by exploiting in-situ stellar system resources. Nevertheless, there are significant concerns regarding the inherent safety of self-replicating machines. We consider the general problem of runaway population growth in physical self-replicating machines to prevent the grey goo problem, the number of offspring spawned by self-replicating machines may be controlled at a genetic level. We adopt a biologically-inspired approach based on telomeres, DNA endcaps that are progressively shortened during cellular replication. This acts as a counter that imposes a limit to the number of replication cycles (Hayflick limit). By examining the biological process in detail, we can obtain some insights in implementing similar mechanisms in self-replicating machines. In particular, we find that counting mechanisms are vulnerable to cancerous runaway.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AstrobiologySame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207