"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
>
> > False. You first have to get there. A design does not a working system
> > make. And even after the working system is in place there is a non-zero
> > amount of time when the active cooperation of others is still needed.
> > After that there is an even longer period where charisma is needed in
> > order to sell humanity on whatever decisions the Seed is making. Or is
> > it planned simply to give humans no choice at all? If so, then I have
> > to ask again. In what way is this good for or even compatible with the
> > nature of human beings?
> >
> > - samantha
>
> I surmise that the Seed has been planted.
> Koza et al. cite 24 instances where genetic programming has produced
> human-competitive results.
> http://ls11-www.informatik.uni-dortmund.de/people/banzhaf/cfp.html
>
> How is this good for humans, you ask.
> I quote from the cited work:
> "Fifteen of the 24 instances... involve previously patented inventions. Six of
> these automatically created results infringe on previously issued patents... One
> of the genetically evolved results improves on a previously issued patent. Nine
> of the genetically evolved results duplicate the functionality of previously
> patented inventions in novel ways. The fact that genetic programming can evolve
> entities that infringe on previously patented inventions, improve on previously
> patented inventions, or duplicate the functionality of previously patented
> inventions suggests that genetic programming can potentially be used as an
> 'invention machine' to create new and useful patentable inventions."
>
> Get it?
>
>
No, because this is not the Singularity Seed but simply successful
genetic programming projects. You seem to be answering a very different
question than I was asking.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:53 MDT