TheOtherDave comments on Say Not "Complexity" - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 August 2007 04:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (49)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 April 2012 09:12:04PM *  0 points [-]

A few things:

  • Agreed that given a process for achieving a goal that involves a comparator with that goal as a target, one can often start with a very fuzzy comparator (for example, "complex behavior") and keep refining it as one goes. That's especially true in cases where the costs of getting it not-quite-right the first time are low relative to the benefits of subsequently getting it righter... e.g., this strategy works a lot better for finding a good place to have dinner than it does for landing a plane. (Though given a bad enough initial comparator for the former, it can also be pretty catastrophic.)

  • I infer that you have a referent for 'fitness' other than whatever it is that gets selected for by evolution. I have no idea what that referent is.

  • I think it's misleading to refer to evolution having a comparator at all. At best it's true only metaphorically. As you say, all evolution acts on is the result of various competitions.

  • You seem to be implying that evolution necessarily results in extremely complex puzzle-inventing systems. If I've understood that correctly, I disagree.