If google is solving problems with super-scientists, why can't they explain
how their AI works anymore?  It would seem like AI is beyond humans now.  I
think we're too focused on DNA as a means of evolution, and there may be
better ways of evolving AI the computer.
On Jan 17, 2014 5:12 AM, "Chris Warburton" <chriswa...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Martin McClure <martin.mccl...@gemtalksystems.com> writes:
>
> > On 01/16/2014 10:58 AM, John Carlson wrote:
> >> What I was thinking was evolving space travel.  If it is a physics
> >> engine, could it evolve warp drive?  Rockets?
> >
> > It'd be fun to see rockets evolve. Should be possible; we understand the
> > physics involved. Warp drive -- well, if we simulate a universe in which
> > this works, it should be able to evolve. Or teleportation, etc...
>
> Even with a bug-free, sophisticated-enough Physics simulation,
> completely open-ended evolution is incredibly inefficient. This issue
> comes up in AI circles, where the question is 'we know that intelligence
> can evolve, since ours did, so why not evolve our programs the same
> way?'.
>
> The problem is that we took billions of years to emerge from a
> planet-wide search algorithm; and even so, we're still just a random
> anomaly (evolution isn't 'trying' to make intelligence). Simulating this
> would take so many resources that you'd be better off simulating a
> virtual human brain atom by atom, with enough resources to spare that
> you could increase its neuron count and processing speed by many orders
> of magnitude.
>
> A similar argument would apply here; if you want advanced technology,
> the most efficient way to get it is to spend your resources thinking
> about the problem. If you have enough computing capacity to simulate its
> evolution, you'd be better off using it to simulate an army of
> super-scientists.
>
> Evolution can be a good approach to very targeted problems with a few
> degrees of freedom, but it's terrible at anything else. It's only
> managed to solve the problems of life via the law of large numbers.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> fonc@vpri.org
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Reply via email to