[caeruleus]

You're raising some intriguing points, and I agree with your assertion about the epigenome. I still feel like your response misses the point I was making.

> followed by examples of things that are encoded by DNA

... given its natural environment. A nucleobase sequence is not a symbolic language, it relies on physical laws in general and a defined chemical environment in particular (that it helps to create and maintain) to mean something. It's similar to the point about Othello vs. the physical world in the article: The language itself does not encode every bit of information about the world it describes. For instance, in 3D space, regions of DNA that are far apart in the sequence can physically interact and influence each other’s expression.

TLDR: I think my point is that a base sequence requires a particular context (~ interpreter/knowledge about the physical world) to encode mostly everything about life. Treating it as just a language in the context of LLMs abstracts away the complex substrate that makes it work.

[throwawaymaths]

i agree that current llms are likely missing quite a few of the trees and probably off on the forest too. however, in general, an llm (or a transformer rather) is a universal function approximator, so in principle, there's no substrate too complex unless somehow it's uncomputable and i see no evidence that biology is uncomputable in the bulk.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

It's not really a question of whether it is uncomputable in bulk.

It is more that a system like DNA operates as both a linear encoding (the "algorithm" if you like) AND as 3D chemical object whose properties allow the encoding to be used in various ways, which means that a huge amount of its linear structure is actually determined by 3D chemical function, rather than encoding for proteins. Moreover, it appears that the role of a given section of DNA can vary depending on what other molecules are interacting with it and what physical state it is in.

If you want a more computer-ish analogy, it's like a computer where the program is actually encoded as a part of the computer's own structure, yet is still logically distinct from the rest of the structure. It may not be physically distinct, however, and thus simply inspecting the structure will not lead to a clear understanding of what is "the program" and what is "the cpu".

[caeruleus]

I recognize that my initial statement comes off as too broad in light of theoretical computability, when I was mostly weighing in terms of current/near-term technology. Given what we know today, I would (still cautiously) agree with your statement. There hasn't been any evidence to the contrary (only some highly contested speculation, most prominently by Roger Penrose).