this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
81 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

58990 readers
4340 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The question that everyone has been dying to know has been answered. Finally! What will scientists study next?

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PetteriPano@lemmy.world 45 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

The theorem holds true. The theorem states that the monkey has infinite time, not just the lifetime of our universe.

That's just lazy science to change the conditions to make sensational headlines. Bad scientists!

[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

This just in: scientists disprove validity of thought experiment; philosophers remain concerned that they've missed the point.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It also makes a pretty bold claim about us actually knowing the lifespan of the universe.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

How are they defining the end of the universe?

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 minutes ago

We know such an infinitesimally small amount about what is actually happening in the universe that any claims to be capable of predicting it's end are patently absurd.

[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

Heat death would be my assumption, so between about 10^100 and 10^106 years

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Infinite time is undefined though. We are not sure there was time before the Big Bang. Before anyone says “but there must have been,” consider that it’s just as paradoxical and mind blowing to imagine that time never had a beginning and just stretches infinitely into the past. How can that be so? It means it would have taken an infinite amount of time for us to reach this moment in time, and that means we never would have.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 hour ago

Infinite time is perfectly defined, it just doesn't exist in our universe

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 43 minutes ago

The author is so stupid, the monkey will of old age long before the universe ends.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

Use infinite monkeys.

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 2 points 36 minutes ago

I just listened to a podcast about assembly theory and I think that it kind of relates here too, though maybe not. If we start randomly generating text that is the lenght of the Hamlet, then Hamlet itself would be one of the possible, finite number of possibilities that could be generated within these parameters. Interesting theory nevertheless.

If we think about a screwdriver, the theory would argue that it couldn’t simply appear out of nowhere because its structure is too specific and complex to have come into existence by chance alone. For that screwdriver to exist, a multitude of precise processes are required: extracting raw materials, refining them, shaping metal, designing the handle, etc. The probability of all these steps happening in the right order, spontaneously, is essentially zero. Assembly theory would say that each stage in the creation of a screwdriver represents a selection event, where choices are made, materials are transformed, and functions are refined.

What makes assembly theory especially intriguing is that it offers a framework to distinguish between things that could arise naturally, like a rock or even an organic molecule, and things that bear the hallmarks of a directed process. To put it simply, a screwdriver couldn't exist without a long sequence of assembly steps that are improbable to arise by chance, thereby making its existence a hallmark of intentional design or, at the very least, a directed process.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 21 minutes ago

I have a way to make it work.

Have the monkey write down a single character. Just one. 29/30 of the time, it won't be the same character as the first one in Shakespeare's complete works; discard that sheet of paper, then try again. 1/30 of the time the monkey will type out the right character; when they do it, keep that sheet of paper and make copies out of it.

Now, instead of giving a completely blank sheet to the monkey, give them one of those copies. And let them type the second character. If different from the actual second character in Shakespeare's works, discard that sheet and give him a new copy (with the right 1st char still there - the monkey did type it out!). Do this until the monkey types the correct second character. Keep that sheet with 2 correct chars, make copies out of it, and repeat the process for the third character.

And then the fourth, the fifth, so goes on.

Since swapping sheets all the time takes more time than letting the monkey go wild, let's increase the time per typed character (right or wrong), from 1 second to... let's say, 60 times more. A whole minute. And since the monkey will type junk 29/30 of the time, it'll take around 30min to type the right character.

...not really. Shakespeare's complete works have around 5 million characters, so the process should take 5*10⁶ * 30min = 2.5 million hours, or 285 years.

But we could do it even better. This approach has a single monkey doing all the work; the paper has 200k of them. We could split Shakespeare's complete works into 200k strings of 25 chars each, and assign each string to a monkey. Each monkey would complete their assignment, on average, after 12h30min; some will take a bit longer, but now we aren't talking about the thermal death of the universe or even centuries, it'll take at most a few days.


Why am I sharing this? I'm not invalidating the paper, mind you, it's cool maths.

I've found this metaphor of monkeys typing Shakespeare quite a bit in my teen years, when I still arsed myself to discuss with creationists. You know, the sort of people who thinks that complex life can't appear due to random mutations, just like a monkey can't type the full works of Shakespeare.

Complex life is not the result of a single "big" mutation, like a monkey typing the full thing out of the blue; it involves selection and inheritance, as the sheets of paper being copied or discarded.

And just like assigning tasks to different monkeys, multiple mutations can pop up independently and get recombined. Not just among sexual beings; even bacteria can transmit genes horizontally.

Already back then (inb4 yes, I was a weird teen...) I developed the skeleton of this reasoning. Now I just plopped the numbers that the paper uses, and here we go.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 17 points 2 hours ago

it is also somewhat misleading

...what? No it isn't. Restricting the premise from infinite to any finite amount of time completely negates it. That doesn't prove it's "misleading", it proves anyone that thinks it does has no idea what they're talking about.

[–] BaneOfStuff@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 4 points 56 minutes ago

Not with a typewriter, though.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 25 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, that’s why we need at least... two of them.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

the paper used the entire population (200 thousand) and would take some 10 ^ 10 ^ 7 heat deaths of the universe

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 20 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It could happen the very first time a monkey sat down at a typewriter. It's just very unlikely.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

from the wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

... the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small.

But not zero.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Basically nothing is ever truly zero

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 15 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Someone wiser than me already said that it already has happened: 1 ape did, in fact, write the complete works of Shakespeare.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 0 points 1 hour ago

Fair enough. I wouldn’t want to insult the Librarian.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

So you’re telling me… there’s a chance!

Sorry, I’m sort of lampooning comments like the one above and below you where people just can’t resist focusing on the possibility, no matter how ridiculously remote it seems. For myself, there’s a point of “functionally zero odds” that I’m willing to accept and move on with my life.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago

so you're saying there's a chance...

[–] rimu@piefed.social 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

ok so the monkeys need to type faster

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 points 1 hour ago

And we need more of them!

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We could breed monkeys to much higher populations.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 21 minutes ago

If we're considering even chimps "monkeys", there's already eight billion of them, I think that's enough.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

As such, we have to conclude that Shakespeare himself inadvertently provided the answer as to whether monkey labour could meaningfully be a replacement for human endeavour as a source of scholarship or creativity. To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 6 points 1 hour ago

To quote Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 87: “No”.

Stealing this to be annoying with

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 2 points 2 hours ago

I prefer Romeo and Juliet, act 1 scene 1 line 41. Just because the exchange is so silly.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Are spelling and punctuation expected to be accurate?

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Oh yeah? Name ONE ape that wrote Shakespeare. Go on I’ll wait

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

He’s probably got a dumb name, like Bill or Willie.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 19 minutes ago

Perhaps even worse: Wobblesticke, Jiggleweapone, stuff like this.

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Let's use our braincells to fix real problems first. Like pants that don't stretch.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago
[–] maxenmajs@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like there has to be more to this problem than pure probability. We ought to consider practical nuances like the tendency to randomly mash keys that are closer together rather than assume a uniform distribution.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Who are you, who is so wise in the ways of science?

[–] Autocheese@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Infinity sorts it out for you, Karl

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

I wonder if it would take more or less time with auto-complete.

[–] Bookmeat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Wait .......is this why AI exists? So we can type Hamlet in the face of monkey failures?

Dude. Just use a printer.

[–] actually@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Omg I just realized AI is the new monkeys.. that is disturbing