You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Houshalter comments on AIFoom Debate - conclusion? - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Bound_up 04 March 2016 08:33PM

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

Comments (48)

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

Comment author: torekp 08 March 2016 02:05:39AM *  1 point [-]

There are many cases where simple genetic algorithms outperform humans. Humans outperform GAs in other cases of course, but it shows we are far from perfect.

To riff on your theme a little bit, maybe one area where genetic algorithms (or other comparably "simplistic" approaches) could shine is in the design of computer algorithms, or some important features thereof.

Comment author: Houshalter 08 March 2016 06:52:19PM 1 point [-]

Well actually GAs aren't that good at algorithms. Because slightly mutating an algorithm usually breaks it, or creates an entirely different algorithm. So the fitness landscape isn't that gentle.

You can do a bit better if you work with circuits instead. And even better if you make the circuits continuous, so small mutations create small changes in output. And you can optimize these faster with gradient descent instead of GAs.

And then you have neural networks, which are quite successful.