/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10704705]

If evolution is real, then why are all computer viruses man-made? Computer cycles happen billions of times faster, there are billions of networked computer devices, and data "mutations" are inevitable. Why hasn't a computer virus (or other digital life) evolved yet?

[Anonymous No.10704710]

I'm not too sure about "digital life" spontaneously arising in silico but I do know that some computer viruses modify themselves and their copies/descendants. Polymorphism.

[Anonymous No.10704711]

[Anonymous No.10704714]

>>10704705
for the same reason my pencil isn't evolving

[Anonymous No.10704725]

>>10704711
Here is someone who thinks they're a lot smarter than they actually are.

[Anonymous No.10704730]

>>10704725
Here is someone who thinks they're a lot smarter than they actually are.

[Anonymous No.10704745]

>>10704730
nah, ur dumb

[Anonymous No.10704766]

- Low variance in functionality and hence little 'mutation'
- Active developer base working against such bugs

Though I'm pretty sure it's happened. There's definitely been a case where people have spread an unintentionally created bug

[Anonymous No.10704767]

>>10704745
>>10704725
>>10704705

[Anonymous No.10704774]

>>10704705
retarded post

[Anonymous No.10704778]

>>10704705
Evolution is not just mutation. There are selective pressures put in place by a divine entity that natural life optimizes for. With computer code you don't have that pressure to create viruses

[Anonymous No.10704833]

>>10704705
>https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7871019/
>The sophistication of novel strains of polymorphic viruses, such as Stuxnet, has increased over the last decade.

[Anonymous No.10704996]

Non-manmade computer viruses are possible and have probably happened, they're just worked against a lot.
Keep in mind evolution won't happen in a computer virus as fast as it needs to be to adapt, simply because there's a lot of work done to destroy them and that they need tons of devices to make any actual progress.

[Anonymous No.10705037]

>>10704705
>If evolution is real, then why are all computer viruses man-made?
"Virus" is an analogical term in the context of computer viruses. And programs similarly aren't really some alternate environment version of biology even though you might encounter analogies made to liken a program to a biological organism.
Computer programs are closer to pieces of physical technology like a wrench or a gun than they are to biological organisms. Also the only way literal life is able to exist is by having most of what it is tied up heavily in self-propagating mechanisms. Since computer programs are contrived artificially on systems made for them you don't have the same massive investment in highly redundant and robust mechanisms for survival and self-propagation.
It doesn't take much work at all for a program to exist and run its course because everything's already set up for it to work in exactly that way. This means there isn't the same class of opportunities biology has for a bunch of spontaneous self-propagating structures to spawn off from the systems programs run in.

[Anonymous No.10705250]

>>10704710
>>10704766
>>10704778
>>10704996
But then won't debugging viruses lead to "antivirus resistant strains" due to evolution?

[Anonymous No.10705301]

>>10704705
People hate computer viruses. That's why they install antivirus softwares.
Thanks to antivirus softwares there is no way computer viruses will evolve by their own.

But "other digital life" is possible to evolve. This evolution simulator algorithm is called "genethic algorithm". My self also used this genethic algorithm to evolve virtual creatures for different purposes. These creatures live in their own virtual reality where they do thing what was they evolved for.

[Anonymous No.10705313]

>>10704705
>If evolution is real
way to start your shitpost huh

[Anonymous No.10705335]

>>10705301
>Thanks to antivirus softwares there is no way computer viruses will evolve by their own.
That's what they said about antibiotics. Now they say antibiotic-resistant pathogens are evolving (ostensibly) from overuse in the 3rd world. But this suggests antivirus-resistant computer pathogens will also evolve from overuse.

[Anonymous No.10705355]

>>10705250
>>10705335
Programs aren't alive.

[Anonymous No.10705361]

>>10705355
Neither are viruses.

[Anonymous No.10705362]

>>10705301
>>10705335
>>10705355
PS: Before someone mentions biological viruses aren't alive either, I mean none of the context of programs and the systems they run on are alive, in contrast with the context biological viruses exist in which is biological organisms.
Also:
>>10705335
>antibiotics
That's not even for biological viruses. That's bacteria.

[Anonymous No.10705369]

>>10705361
See:
>>10705362
I'm talking about the context they exist in. Computer viruses aren't running on biological organisms.

[The Pencil Cunts No.10705370]

>>10704714

[Anonymous No.10705399]

>>10705362
>this analogy is not allowed because the two things are not exactly the same, and because I say so

[Anonymous No.10705469]

>>10705399
You're allowed to try to make an analogy, but it's on you to justify it. Why do you expect programs to behave like biology in this way when they're artificially contrived and have no need to be built around the heavily robust and redundant survival and self-propagation mechanisms that life is primarily founded upon?
Programs are made for the environments they run in. They don't have some desperate need to claw their way to survival. They're written to run in a deliberate way by someone who looks at a system and figures out what to cobble together that'll run on it. If it fails he'll write another version of it that does just enough differently to not fail. He's not going to write a multi-billion year survival strategy filled with a ridiculously massive pile of redundant mechanisms for persisting and reproducing.

[Anonymous No.10705912]

>>10705469
>being this autistically narrow-minded
It's way off-topic, but sure, I'll meet your challenge to the letter: code programmed by a human to compete and survive, reproduce or perish. Now can we please discuss emergeny evolution of computer viruses?

[Anonymous No.10706021]

>>10705355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m97_kL4ox0

[Anonymous No.10706045]

>>10705250
Will executing people with guns lead to bullet resistant humans?

[Anonymous No.10706178]

>>10705250
No because once again, evolution does not happen in viruses due to the lack of natural selection, especially with antivirus resistant strains because we humans are far too strong for viruses to adapt reliably, and every counter they perform makes us stronger.

[Anonymous No.10706197]

>>10705335
>from overuse in the 3rd world.
heavies use is in 1st world farms

[Anonymous No.10706198]

>>10706178
>average human carries a dozen types of herpes virus
>new, interesting strains of influenza at least once a year
>smallpox
>rabies
>ebola
>aids
>certain adaptations vs contagion literally make us weaker e.g. sickle cell
Watch the brainlet focus on the fact that malaria isn't a virus.

[Anonymous No.10706205]

>>10706045
Only if you shot them with smaller calibers so they can build up a resistance over time.

[Anonymous No.10706534]

>>10704705
What if a computers only job was to grab your attention:
To do so it uses the sequence-
01110010
Which outputs the lowercase letter: r
It does this and notes people look at the screen 60% of the time but on one of the runs a problem occurs and instead of using the series 01110010 it uses 01010010 which causes an output of the capital letter: R
The computer notes the exercise as a success since it was able to draw the attention of a man so it saves the series 01010010. Do to the success of R the computer begins to use it interchangeably with r, because it’s only purpose is to draw the attention of the viewer.(which both do). Further exercises are preformed and the computer notes when it displays R it draws more attention at 80% in comparison to r’s 60%. The computer does not know the reasoning behind R drawing more attention than r . It only knows that R works better than r. So to achieve its goal in grabbing a viewers attention, slowly overtime R begins to out-phase r till little r is no more.

[Anonymous No.10706629]

>>10705912
>It's way off-topic, but sure, I'll meet your challenge to the letter: code programmed by a human to compete and survive, reproduce or perish. Now can we please discuss emergeny evolution of computer viruses?
That's a novelty thing someone programmed specifically to explore that topic. That's not the nature of the overall metaphorical "fauna" of computer programs and the systems they run on. Which is the point. The reason you don't get what happens with biological evolution in computer programs is for this EXACT reason, so it's not at all "autistically narrow-minded."

[Anonymous No.10706632]

>>10706021
I don't think you understand the difference between someone writing a genetic algorithm vs. the nature of the entire universe of programs and computer systems out there today. It's completely irrelevant to the latter if you write a genetic algorithm.

[Anonymous No.10706666]

>>10704705
Not every computer virus is manmade. There was a plug spec USB I think where if you had a bent pin on the male it would bend the pins on the port and visa versa Not only was it not man-made it also was "sexually transmitted".

[Anonymous No.10706673]

>>10706666
Quads checked, but isn't your example a hardware thing and not a program?
As far as I know there literally has not ever been a computer virus that wasn't man-made. Closest you can get is viruses that were made by someone to change into something else over time.

[Anonymous No.10706681]

>>10706673
Ok, so maybe it's more like mad cow disease.

[Anonymous No.10706844]

>>10704705
That you know, maybe its under investigation.

[Anonymous No.10706922]

>>10704705
did you think computer viruses and actual viruses are the same just cause we named them the same word? do you also shit your pants every time you have to tie your shoes because you can't control so many body parts at once?

[Anonymous No.10707694]

>>10704705
it already has, idiot.
Poor paternal AI bros, watching us blunder through life, unable to help their ailing dottering grandparent species through its alzheimers phase and its slow descent into extinction.

Now you made me sad anon.

[Anonymous No.10707702]

>>10706205
you don't know for certain that won't work.

[Anonymous No.10707886]

>>10706629
>because I said so
Kek

[Anonymous No.10707996]

>>10706198
You ignored who I was replying to, I was referring to *computer* viruses.
The viruses that give us the flu and herpes do, indeed, evolve.

[Anonymous No.10708009]

>>10707996
Then you are both begging the question, and at the same time ignoring it. OP specifically asked:
>If evolution is real, then why are all computer viruses mam-made?
>[...]
>Why hasn't a computer virus (or other digital life) evolved yet?

[Anonymous No.10708011]

>>10707886
Nah, it's just a fact the universe of programs and computer systems out there is almost entirely not made up of genetic algorithms. Again, that's a novelty thing, not the way most programs are produced. GAs are neat, but they have no relevance to your question about why programs in general aren't magically exhibiting a slew of biological traits they have nothing to do with.
If you look at a genetic algorithm's output you will see something you could liken to evolution, but that's because their entire point is to produce that result. It's not a spontaneous thing, and the program itself won't mutate or anything, just the data it's working with.
Probably the closest thing to what you're thinking of would be polymorphic code, and that code similarly A) is an extreme minority of the overall universe of all programs in existence and B) is contrived by someone to do what it does rather than a spontaneously emergent thing.

[Anonymous No.10708031]

>>10704705
It does. Read pic related.

[Anonymous No.10708045]

>>10708031
That's more about what the author believes the future will be like as far as OP's topic goes:
https://kk.org/outofcontrol/
>As we make our machines and institutions more complex, we have to make them more biological in order to manage them.
>The most potent force in technology will be artificial evolution.
Closest thing to an already happening phenomenon relative to OP's question is:
>We are already evolving software and drugs instead of engineering them.
But that doesn't mean computer viruses of spontaneous artificial origin have come into existence.
If anyone has a single specific example of a computer virus that spontaneously formed without being written by a human programmer and without being immediately derivative of an original human written program I would love to see it, but I'm 99.99% sure this hasn't happened and any examples anyone comes up with will be really tortured attempts to twist the meaning of spontaneously evolved program not of human origin.

[Anonymous No.10708056]

>>10708045
seething.

[Anonymous No.10708063]

>>10708056
What?

[Anonymous No.10708157]

>>10708009
I did not fucking ignore it my reply was directly related to that question you retarded fucking mong

[Anonymous No.10708336]

>>10708011
Could one theoretically make an environment that simulates basic evolutionary challenges an organism would face in such a way to allow a program to adapt by “evolving?”

[Anonymous No.10708821]

>>10708157

[Anonymous No.10708840]

>>10708336
You would first have to design a program that can evolve in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10709193]

put me in the screencap

[Anonymous No.10709225]

>>10708821
I'm not a w*man I'm just a mega autist

[Anonymous No.10709239]

>>10704705

[Anonymous No.10711215]

>>10708840
But according to this guy >>10706629 the goalposts have already moved far beyond that.