On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:45 PM, mike.v...@gmail.com <mike.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-04-28 16:17 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net>: >> >> >> the rest of the article makes a really good point, which has me >> deeply concerned now that there are fuckwits out there making >> "driverless" cars, toying with people's lives in the process. you >> have *no idea* what unexpected decisions are being made, what has been >> "optimised out". > > > That's no different from regular "human" programming. it's *massively* different. a human will follow their training, deploy algorithms and have an *understanding* of the code and what it does. monte-carlo-generated iterative algorthms you *literally* have no idea what it does or how it does it. the only guarantee that you have is that *for the set of inputs CURRENTLY tested to date* you have "known behaviour". but for the cases which you haven't catered for you *literally* have no way of knowing how the code is going to react. now this sounds very very similar to the human case: yes you would expect human-written code to also have to pass test suites. but the real difference is highighted with the following question: when it comes to previously undiscovered bugs, how the heck are you supposed to "fix" bugs that you have *LITERALLY* no idea how the code even works? and that's what it really boils down to: (a) in unanticipated circumstances you have literally no idea what the code will do. it could do something incredibly dangerous. (b) in unanticipated circumstances the chances of *fixing* the bug in the genetic-derived code are precisely: zero. the only option is to run the algorithm again but with a new set of criteria, generating an entirely new algorithm which *again* is in the same (dangerous) category. l. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
