[eu-gene] need advice on a framework design

[David Hart]

> Not as many as I expected to find when I looked.  Maybe I should check the
> AI literature more closely?  I'm not sure where these "lots of people" are.
>

Ok, I will try to find some links...


But doesn't natural evolution always apply the same fitness function,
> ability to survive long enough to reproduce, and yet create new species?
>

The fitness of an individual doesn't have much to do with creating new
species, mutation does that, in theory.  Natural forces do change over time
and differ according to location, environment, species, reproduction rates,
etc..


> What I'm saying then is that for an artist it's not enough that the
evolutionary process simply be technically complete.

Then it is a really good idea for the artist to understand how far
evolution can take him and where its capabilities end, right?  If he needs
good art, and his tools don't make good art for him, then he has to figure
out something else, right?


> If you had an evolutionary system to design airplanes, but the airplanes
fell from the sky, I don't think you would refer to that evolutionary
system as "working."

On the contrary, as long as the fitness function measures flight time, and
over time the flight times get longer, it *is* working, it is not really a
matter of opinion or debate.  Just because you want it to fly, doesn't mean
that it will, and it also doesn't mean evolution is a failure.  If we tried
to design airplanes via artificial evolution, we would without a doubt run
through many crashing designs before arriving at one that flies.  Turns
out, direct design actually did produce a bunch of crashing designs before
we got to one that flies.  We went through fewer crashes than we would have
if we'd used evolution to make aircraft.

Natural evolution does exactly this.  How many generations would it take of
us jumping off cliffs before we evolved flight?  We'd go extinct after 1.
Does that mean natural evolution is a dead end?  We humans can't fly just
because we want to.  We haven't evolved invincibility.  We can't breathe
water or fire.  Our skeletal systems are weak and prone to failure.  We
have adapted only to the existing natural forces of our species, and there
is a long list of failure up to this point.  If you put humans in any other
context than our current environment, we can't survive.

If you want to play with or opine on artificial evolution, it would be a
good idea to better understand this fundamental point.


> Similarly an artist's evolutionary system has to generate good art or
else it's not working either...at least not in an artistic sense.

Must a paintbrush generate good art?  Must photoshop generate good art?  If
they don't generate good art does that mean they're not working?  Why must
artificial evolution generate good art for an artist?


> Perhaps a computer scientist could find love for an evolutionary system
that designs fatal aircraft or bad art.  Not me.

You are using criteria that are unreasonable and misunderstand what
artificial evolution is supposed to do, in order to claim its lack of
utility.  You are expecting evolution to give you the correct answer, and
yet you aren't holding any other medium or technique to the same
unrealistic standard.  Humans have created lots of fatal aircraft and lots
of bad art, through a wide variety of means.  If you can't tolerate any
risk of failure, you have exactly 0 options.

--
David.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.generative.net/pipermail/eu-gene/attachments/20120128/afaa7587/attachment.htm