> > At some point, people will get genetic programming to the point where
you
> > can make formal specs for a bit of a system (a component), with
rigourous
> > definitions of the pre-built pieces (components) that system depends on
and
> > the interface it will provide, and you will be able to evolve it.
Arguably
> > that technique could build some very complex systems. Eventually you
might
> > be able to evolve the design, as well as the implementation; and then we
> > begin to move into uncharted territory. Yet I still think that, even
then,
> > there'll be a level for humans, hacking away at something which is still
not
> > amenable to automation, standing on the generated systems and reaching
for
> > the stars.
> >
>
> I agree. So why aren't we out building that system today? Wanna put
> together a business plan and go looking for funding? Seriously.
>
>
> - samantha
You can't say this to me... you thought I was a VB programmer (oh the
shame)! And you were going to slap me, geez, I've got my eye on you. Never
turn your back on a slapper.
Well, I'm not a VB programmer, but I'm still seriously underqualified to do
more than rant vaguely about genetic programming. Eugene has a passing
familiarity with this stuff; got a status report on state-of-the-art for us?
I'm a bit afraid that the business plan would look something like:
1 - Get lots o money
2 - Spend lots o money doing heaps of cool research into genetic
programming, play around with oh so excellent equipment, discover some
excellent stuff, have a bloody fantastic time
3 - Run out of money with no products/market to show for it,
4 - get a slapping (eek) from the VC(s)
5 - Reputation in ruins, become a tramp, scavenge in bins, waiting for
the singularity
Emlyn, die hard optimist
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:00 MDT