From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sun Sep 24 2000 - 23:05:34 MDT
> False. You first have to get there. A design does not a working system
> make. And even after the working system is in place there is a non-zero
> amount of time when the active cooperation of others is still needed.
> After that there is an even longer period where charisma is needed in
> order to sell humanity on whatever decisions the Seed is making. Or is
> it planned simply to give humans no choice at all? If so, then I have
> to ask again. In what way is this good for or even compatible with the
> nature of human beings?
>
> - samantha
I surmise that the Seed has been planted.
Koza et al. cite 24 instances where genetic programming has produced
human-competitive results.
http://ls11-www.informatik.uni-dortmund.de/people/banzhaf/cfp.html
How is this good for humans, you ask.
I quote from the cited work:
"Fifteen of the 24 instances... involve previously patented inventions. Six of
these automatically created results infringe on previously issued patents... One
of the genetically evolved results improves on a previously issued patent. Nine
of the genetically evolved results duplicate the functionality of previously
patented inventions in novel ways. The fact that genetic programming can evolve
entities that infringe on previously patented inventions, improve on previously
patented inventions, or duplicate the functionality of previously patented
inventions suggests that genetic programming can potentially be used as an
'invention machine' to create new and useful patentable inventions."
Get it?
--J. R.
"But what ... is it good for?"
--Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
commenting on the microchip.
[Amara Graps Collection]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:10 MST