4 ms·

Okay so seeing how a brain is made up from 86 billion neurons. 16 of those in the most recently developed cerebral cortex. Randomly creating a set of random con

Okay so seeing how a brain is made up from 86 billion neurons. 16 of those in the most recently developed cerebral cortex. Randomly creating a set of random configuration of billions of neurons and then subjecting them to simulated evolutionary evolutionary preasure on the basis of how close they come to A) the correct solution B) compiling code that runs C) tests if available* Kill of the worst performing networks. Mate the most succesful and have the offspring replace those who where not fit enough for survival. How would it work exactly, I wouldn't know which is sort of the point. But sooner or later representations of abstractions within the code would appear within the graphs. I get that this is not either trivial and cheap. Let alone hosting the wast amount of source code and parse it would require computing power weighing in at quite a hefty sum. Human beings probably have the advantage of having built in functionallity that we are born with encoded in our DNA. I suppose that a fair bit of "intelligent design" would be required. That is having coded parses that breaks down the source code into input signals that would help speed up the evolution. Even reaching halfway there could be useful. Say by providing useful analysis, maybe warn if something seem stupid. To some extent I believe that for a natural language programming language to be viable some understanding of abstract concepts have to be present in the algorithm. That's why I don't think we'll ever program via speech recognition for example. Whenever Siri is smart enough to parse what we are trying to do, why bother with programming. Why not cut the middle man and plug her directly into Jira. but I'd love to be proven wrong regarding this though. I am by no means saying that it would be easy or even viable within the forseable future. Thank God for that because that would means unemployment for quite a few of us. * As I am writing this it struck me that test driven development just happens to make this easier.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> How would it work exactly, I wouldn't know which is sort of the point. But sooner or later representations of abstractions within the code would appear within the graphs. Sorry to be mean but all this sounds awfully confused and terribly hand-wavy. It sounds like you think that stuff would just magically work like you want it, if only you mix up enough ingredients (data, computation, neural networks, evolution, abstractions, representations, graphs...). Well, stuff doesn't just magickally work. Lots of people (like, literally thousands) are training machine learning models and not a single model has ever come close to "understanding" anything. I'd start from trying to figure out why that is the case, and then see if something can be done about it. Otherwise -and, sorry again, but- all these are mere time-wasting fantasies.
- tracer4201 7y ago
  When op used the word “understanding”, I interpreted it as some program that can provide code snippets, skeletons, or whatever abstraction in some contextual way so it’s not just a dumb table lookup. You’re post is unnecessarily pessimistic and generally bad faith. And maybe ops vision can’t be realized today, but if someone is thinking beyond the current state of the art, it’s short sighted and incredibly ignorant to dismiss them as time wasting fantasies.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Assuming the OP expects to gain something from this conversation, the most benefit that can be gained is from telling them why their idea makes no sense. That is what "good faith" means and that is what I did. Your comment, on the other hand, seems to be confusing good faith with indulgence. Just saying "yes" to people and being nice to them does them no favours.
    - tracer4201 7y ago
      A discussion that makes us think about the boundaries of what is or isn’t possible today is indulgence? You failed spectacularly by your own definition of a good faith discussion by dismissing ops post as “fantasy”. You give no explanation of why it is unachievable today or why it would continue to be impossible in the future. My previous team had a member who outright dismissed ideas and criticized things for the sake of sounding intelligent without proposing solutions to further the discussion or solve the problem. We let him go. Good luck.
      - TBF-RnD 7y ago
        Thank you :D Couldn't have written it better myself. Maybe there is an minimal test case that could demonstrate deeper understanding. Sort of a fizz-buzz for AI, to separate the parrots from the thinkers so to speak. Food for thought. Meanwhile I am to busy on other grandiose plans to give it to much attention ATM.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> How would it work exactly, I wouldn't know which is sort of the point. But sooner or later representations of abstractions within the code would appear within the graphs. Sorry to be mean but all this sounds awfully confused and terribly hand-wavy. It sounds like you think that stuff would just magically work like you want it, if only you mix up enough ingredients (data, computation, neural networks, evolution, abstractions, representations, graphs...). Well, stuff doesn't just magickally work. Lots of people (like, literally thousands) are training machine learning models and not a single model has ever come close to "understanding" anything. I'd start from trying to figure out why that is the case, and then see if something can be done about it. Otherwise -and, sorry again, but- all these are mere time-wasting fantasies.

tracer4201 7y ago
When op used the word “understanding”, I interpreted it as some program that can provide code snippets, skeletons, or whatever abstraction in some contextual way so it’s not just a dumb table lookup. You’re post is unnecessarily pessimistic and generally bad faith. And maybe ops vision can’t be realized today, but if someone is thinking beyond the current state of the art, it’s short sighted and incredibly ignorant to dismiss them as time wasting fantasies.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  Assuming the OP expects to gain something from this conversation, the most benefit that can be gained is from telling them why their idea makes no sense. That is what "good faith" means and that is what I did. Your comment, on the other hand, seems to be confusing good faith with indulgence. Just saying "yes" to people and being nice to them does them no favours.
  - tracer4201 7y ago
    A discussion that makes us think about the boundaries of what is or isn’t possible today is indulgence? You failed spectacularly by your own definition of a good faith discussion by dismissing ops post as “fantasy”. You give no explanation of why it is unachievable today or why it would continue to be impossible in the future. My previous team had a member who outright dismissed ideas and criticized things for the sake of sounding intelligent without proposing solutions to further the discussion or solve the problem. We let him go. Good luck.
    - TBF-RnD 7y ago
      Thank you :D Couldn't have written it better myself. Maybe there is an minimal test case that could demonstrate deeper understanding. Sort of a fizz-buzz for AI, to separate the parrots from the thinkers so to speak. Food for thought. Meanwhile I am to busy on other grandiose plans to give it to much attention ATM.