Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!bt!btnet!demon!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!dcs.ed.ac.uk!jura.dcs.ed.ac.uk!iic
From: iic@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ian Clarke)
Subject: Re: Has anyone written a genuinely evolving computer virus?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: jura.dcs.ed.ac.uk
Message-ID: <DIvBIr.1ow.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
X-Newsreader: xrn 8.00
Thfrom: iic@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ian Clarke)
References: <DIHzxs.HMM.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk> <mreddy-2811951026330001@mreddy.comp.glam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:04:01 GMT
Lines: 46

In article <mreddy-2811951026330001@mreddy.comp.glam.ac.uk>, mreddy@glam.ac.uk (Mike Reddy) writes:
> In article <DIHzxs.HMM.0.staffin.dcs.ed.ac.uk@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
> iic@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Ian Clarke) wrote:
> 
> >I realise that some may consider even the mere contemplation of such a
> >program as wreckless, however the possibility of creating a form of life, 
> >which has the potential to escape the artificial womb which we create and
> >survive in the real world, must be investigated.
> 
> Emotive stuff, obviously. I can foresee quite a flame-filled thread here!
> Would it be useful, perhaps, to draw an analogy with Genetic Engineering.
> Both fields have the potential for explosive development. Neither field
> has anyone capable of guaranteeing the results (or even predicting the
> long term effects) of releasing organisms into the environment (whether
> computer or real world).
> 
> However, from small bacteria, large organisms grow. Artificial life and
> inspiration from ethology has made improvements in the way that robots are
> being programmed. Survival, mobility and adaptability are useful traits in
> a truly intelligent program. The issue is whether we want them in harmful
> applications. In the real world, viruses and bacteria are something we
> have the battle against constantly (and it always will be a never ending
> battle). However, the same 'technology' is responsible for everything
> around us (including us!).
> 
> I'd like to see research into evolving programs, but actually setting
> about producing a virus (i.e. a program that does damage) is not the best
> approach. They may well 'evolve' on their own, but the silicon equivalent
> of biological weapons don't serve any productive end. Why not look for
> some more positive goal in your researches?

(Author of original posting writes)
What could be more positive than the creation of a new life-form.  I would
not truly consider Tierran programs or their ilk truely alive because 
their existence is purely due to the interest of human researchers (this is
debatable I know but I really don't want to get into that), I think that 
something which could fend for itself in a hostile world, not specifically
designed for life would be way ahead.  This is my primary motivation.  
Also, if I forced the programs to do anything but reproduce as much as
possible this would also be unsatisfactory, their only priority must be
survival (as is that of most life).

-- 
|IAN CLARKE        |"Then on the shore / of the wide world I stand|
|                  |alone, and think till love and fame to        |
|I.Clarke@ed.ac.uk |nothingness do sink" - John Keats             |
