• hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 days ago

    Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, it’s a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing.

      The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details

        • onlinepersona@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.

            • onlinepersona@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              So? That’s nowhere near the same thing as what you’re suggesting “AI can just take DNA and make the same person”. Look up what twins actually are. They aren’t just DNA injected into some random person.

          • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Same womb, similar growing environment, etc.

        But even then, they’re not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same.

        • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          I don’t think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA

          • BrainBow65@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            If you’re just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic.