From: jpp22 (JPP22@student.canterbury.ac.nz)
Date: Tue Feb 20 2001 - 16:25:04 MST
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> Evolution has certain characteristics by which it can be recognized. If
> designed things look absolutely nothing like it, then it doesn't matter
> whether or not you've expanded "evolution" to describe everything in the
> Universe; it just means that you've expanded "evolution" to the point
> where it becomes useless.
>
> Evolution describes a specific subset of the Universe. It describes
> bacteria and people, but not stars (random) or surge protectors
> (designed). Calling something "evolved" is a useful statement, especially
> in Friendly AI, because it enables us to predict certain characteristics
> that appear in evolved things but not random things or designed things.
> If you mutate the term beyond its fitness, it will die.
Recently in New Scientist there has been articles of a computer system
that takes
electronic circuits and evolves them to be more efficient than the human
designed counterparts. Also it is able to find alternative routes to
give a device the same effect as another (and also avoid patent
infringements
at the same time).
Now this doesn't counter Eliezer's claims that evolution is obsolete,
it just says that maybe we should hold onto evolution for a while. At
least
until we have an AI of sufficient intelligence to out perform evolved
designs
with equivalent amounts of computing power.
Joel
BTW, sorry for the late post, I've been away on holiday and am trying to
catch
up on the hundreds of emails sitting in my mailbox.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT