>>10909923What makes biology shit for computational automation is it's extremely redundant in layout and inconsistent in approach.
It's not helpful for a planned computational application to have billions of years worth of gradual evolution where every little momentary step along the way had to stand on its own as a functioning machine in its own right. That's a shitload of overhead you have no need for when what you're trying to get is something that can perform computational tasks in one form, the form it exists as you build it. Nature doesn't have that benefit of forethought and planning and you have way more baggage as a result if you go the route of slavishly reproducing every little detail of a biological machine for the sake of a computational innovation.
Needing to recreate biology is the worst case scenario for what's required with any given computational project. If you find yourself recreating an entire brain just that means you have no idea how the specific functionality you're looking for really works because there isn't any way human brains are structured with anywhere close to zero redundancy. Redundancy is great for *being* a biological organism since it means you can get serious brain damage and still have cognitive functionality recovered through entirely different undamaged locations / networks of locations in your brain. But for an artificial application that's a waste, not a benefit. Artificial applications need to be designed for computation, not for surviving to reproductive age in an Oxygen-rich environment.
