Not that I'm qualified to reply, but I think this is debated. I seem to recall reading in "Immune" by Philipp Dettmer that there is an argument that a virus is analogous to a spore stage of life, and the virus begins "living" when it plants itself inside a cell full of "nutrients", sheds it's skin and begins consuming and replicating.

It is always going to be controversial but after discovery of prions - needle shifted to "self-replicating means nothing and viruses are also dead". Then scientists also found viruses large enough that they get infected with other viruses, and parasitic cells that are missing most parts required for metabolism, so it is getting more fuzzy again.

Viruses are to life as LLMs are to reasoning: they often behave like their category expects but not for the same reasons as the genuine article.

as a former virologist, I love the thought that LLMs are the virus of reasoning :)

Once a virologist always a virologist I always say.

..er, a parasitic threat to life and happiness that become an endemic drag on global well being?

Every other living organism looking at human beings: yeah.

They do have genes and are subject to natural selection so to say the least they are a clear borderline case.

From what I remember from undergrad the reason they're not life is that they lack their own metabolism, they use the metabolism of host cells. And metabolism needs to be a constant thing, they don't have any when outside a cell.

Hey, if they originated naturally and interact with the environment and reproduce, they are living beings. Mere human taxonomists can't just "classify" away the fact.

You are doing the same classification. It all depends on the definition of what a living being is.

Are crystalline structures alive?

The one that destroyed Data's planet was, I'd say.

MRS GREN would like to have a word with you :)

I was taught in school they were something in between.