Good question. My assumption is based on robotic Chinese military hardware which was put on display recently bearing superficial resemblance to Boston Dynamics robots from about a decade ago, but I realize that this may not be sufficient evidence to establish the West's lead in robotics.
The West's effort to offset the massive strategic advantages of a Russia-India-China axis (demographics, manufacturing capacity, energy) might result in doubling down on the AI+robotics edge they currently enjoy. China not being far off in terms of capabilities might create additional pressures. I'm concerned that recent ideas surrounding global/multilateral AI governance and alignment (e.g. "Consensus-1") might be thwarted by geopolitics.
Predicting sequence from structure just belongs to a different class of problems. Pierce & Winfree (2002) seem to have proven that it is NP-hard.
I think that one problem is that an AA sequence generally results in a single, predictable 3D structure (at stable pH, and barring any misfolding events), whereas there are a lot of AA sequences that would result in something resembling e.g. an axle of a certain size, and even more that do not. It seems to me that this problem is in a different class of computational complexity.
Interesting thought experiment.
Your ability to rotate in place is redundant. Your vestibular apparatus is located in your ears, which don't exist in this space, meaning that you are wholly incapable of proprioception.
Hence, the only input you're getting is the colour white. However, since you have nothing to compare it to, I would expect that any and all circuits designed for perceiving lines, edges, shapes and other colours would fail to develop. The same goes for circuits related to sensory input that is non-visual.
Connections between neurons that go unused are pruned, and it seems that all connections that originate and terminate in the brain go unused in this thought experiment. My guess would be that you would end up with a brain full of disconnected neurons, though I'd hesitate to even call that a brain.
I predict that the sharp rise in unemployment and economic uncertainty has increased in incidence of some mental illnesses, in particular major depression and substance use disorders.
This will continue to negatively impact the real economy for some time: depressed people are too anhedonic to consume things they don't truly need, and the newly minted alcoholics won't be as productive as they were pre-2020.
What are some reasons to believe that Rice's theorem doesn't doom the AI alignment project by virtue of making it impossible to verify alignment, independent of how it is defined/formalized?