4 ms·
> Perhaps we can cut out the middleman here. Maybe the answer is not for ML models to come up with human-understandable algorithms. Perhaps the answer is for th
by merlincorey 7y ago
> Perhaps we can cut out the middleman here. Maybe the answer is not for ML models to come up with human-understandable algorithms. Perhaps the answer is for them to produce optimized code that implements the algorithms they've discovered.
I would rather a high level algorithm description as an output -- which could definitely be fed into some sort of compiler that ultimately outputs executable code.
I feel like going straight to executable code isn't solving the problem GP was interested in, which I believe to be the problem of transferring knowledge from machine to engineer in much the way an engineer would transfer it to another engineer.
An algorithm that outputs code without any high level understanding or documentation is about as useful to me in a large project as an intern who can copy-paste from Stack Overflow and produce volumes of code with no documentation, in the long term.
- AstralStorm 7y agoYou can throw the algorithm through a logic simplifier and pattern matcher, like the one available in Isabelle. This often helps figure things out, but not if the algorithm is just a bunch of weights.
- JohnBooty 7y agoYeah, that would of course be preferable. A humanized description like "push the pixels toward the edges" is of course a wonderful thing. I suspect many (most?) algorithms are sufficiently complex as to make this completely infeasible, but hopefully I'm wrong!
- Dont_panic 7y agoThat will defeat the whole purpose. Remember, we are not writing code here but trying to optimize code based on what code that machine produced