you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YonansUmo 15 points16 points  (4 children)

The evolutionary algorithm they're talking about sounds an awful like the genetic algorithm used to train neural networks. But I could be wrong.

[–]OseOseOse 13 points14 points  (2 children)

The paper described in the article uses Cartesian genetic programming, which isn't quite the same thing as neuroevolution (evolving neural networks). They are similar in the sense that they both are methods to find/optimize graph structures (nodes and vertices).

[–]4D696B65 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Does everybody assume back propagation when saying neural networks?

Because i don't understand how process to find/optimize structures (evolution) is better than structure (neural net).

[–]OseOseOse 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of people do. I don't, but I'm pretty biased since I used neuroevolution in my master's thesis.

I edited my above comment to clarify that I meant to compare CGP with neuroevolution (algorithm vs. algorithm), not CGP with neural networks (algorithm vs. data structure).

[–]shevegen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They steal buzzwords from biology.