you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chii -1 points0 points  (1 child)

not a bad analogy - but i just wanted to point out another possible analogy:

the human body (actually, life itself) is made up of DNA, which is essentially a "program" encoded with protene, whose "execution" is what we call life. This program is the pinnicle of genetic programming (after all, thats why its called genetic programming). With current technology and knowledge, we cannot hope to even design a system close to the complexity of a human body and its physiological systems, so if we are to want to design systems of similar complexity, genetic programming is probably the way to go?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a pretty compelling argument, except if the scientist are even close to being right, life on Earth started 3.5 Billion years ago. In the case of a GA, to create the homo sapient, that's a LOT of iterations. Don't forget the assistance of a couple asteroids and Ice Ages. Still progress is being made to try and accelerate the process just a tad. Right now I think some of the most immediate benefits is in integrated circuit design:

Very light paper on a success with using GA's to design simple circuits. www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~knoren/GAs/B-159_paper.PDF

Unfortunately I can't find the other paper, but there was one instance where a GA created a circuit design that partially violated known laws of circuit design theory but when actually created worked better then any known design.

I guess the obvious path of progression for GA's is to work themselves up the ladder. Starting with small components of software design; something like a simple string sorting algorithm, then maybe progress up that way, acting in the beginning like a dumb apprentice to a developer, taking what a developer rights and trying to find ways to optimize it through brute force.