The scary future of AI is revealed by how it deals with junk DNA

Today I did a Google search for the term "JUNK DNA" and, as usual, the first thing I saw was the Google AI description of junk DNA. It's wrong, but that's not the scary part. The most frightening thing about the AI description is that it promotes three videos that misrepresent science and two of them are from well known kooks.

What does this tell you about current versions of AI? It tells you that it is not intelligent in any meaningful sense of the word. It tells you that Google AI is incapable of distinguishing between scientific facts and ignorance. It tilts toward the loudest voices on the internet and, as we all know, those voices are frequently wrong.

Here's what I saw ...

"Junk DNA" is a historical term for non-coding DNA, which was once thought useless, but is now known to have crucial roles in regulating gene activity, structuring the genome, and influencing development, with much of it (around 98% in humans) involved in complex biological functions, though some fragments (pseudogenes, viral remnants) may still be functionally neutral.

This video explains how the term 'junk DNA' originated and why scientists now believe it has important functions:

This is a video by the well-known kook, Bruce Lipton. Read the Wikipedia article to see who I'm talking about. Apparently Google AI is incapable of checking its sources.

What It Was Thought To Be

Non-Coding: The term emerged because only about 2% of our DNA codes for proteins, the rest was deemed "junk".

Evolutionary Remnants: It included old viral sequences, transposons (jumping genes), and pseudogenes (broken gene copies) that didn't seem to do anything beneficial.

Watch this video to understand the origins of the 'junk DNA' theory and why it is now considered a myth:

This is a video from the Discovery Institute, a creationist organization. I've already explained why it is wrong [Why do Intelligent Design Creationists still lie about junk DNA?]. The important point is that Google AI cannot tell the difference between good science and bad science.

What We Now Know It Does (Functions)

• Gene Regulation: Acts as enhancers and switches, controlling when and how much other genes are turned on or off, even from far away.
• Genome Structure: Helps fold DNA into specific 3D shapes, crucial for proper cell function.
• Cellular Processes: Regulates cell development, differentiation, and response to environmental cues.
• Evolutionary Role: Transposons, once "junk," have been co-opted for vital developmental roles.

This video provides a detailed look into the important functions of what was once called 'junk DNA':

This is a video published by PBS. It's slightly better than the first two videos but still full of misinformation about junk DNA and the history of genomics.

Why the Term is Problematic

• Misleading: The term "junk" downplays its importance, as many regions once labeled as such have essential functions.
• Context-Dependent: Some DNA might be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful) in one context (like "Spam DNA"), but "junk" implies a total lack of purpose, which is often incorrect.

In Summary: "Junk DNA" is largely a historical label for the vast amount of non-protein-coding DNA that scientists are now discovering plays critical, complex roles in our biology, from orchestrating gene expression to shaping the genome's structure.

The good news is that the current versions of AI are not very intelligent so it's not going to take the place of knowledgeable scientists.

The bad news is that there are many AI advocates who are saying that AI is already more intelligent that the average high school graduate and it won't be long before it's smarter that someone with a Ph.D. Because of the hype, more and more people are beginning to believe that AI is actually intelligent. It will be a disaster if the average person thinks that Google AI, for example, is actually giving them accurate information.

---