I wonder why the parent comment is downvoted. To a layman like me, it sounds completely reasonable.

Maintaining an exact copy of RNA/DNA through generations and generations is a real challenge, right? Loosening up the copying mechanisms to allow for more mistakes would probably be quite easy to achieve, if that was beneficial, right?

I’d be interested to hear what makes the idea wrong.

I’m no expert in the field and the only remotely relevant experience I have is a tiny amount of genetic algorithm programming at a rank amateur level.

I assume that making perfect replicas is the default way for a given type of life to dominate. Making “random copies” (an oxymoron) is not likely to result in domination of any individual type (of building block, single cell, or multi-cellular life). Making perfect copies allows a build-up of “winners”.

If that implies a very strong selection process for perfect copies, then after that a selection process for increased (but still small in aggregate) mutation rate would seem globally helpful.