3 ms·
[reply to darkmighty comment below, thread depth limitation] Indeed this is exactly it, evolution is a global method, learning is local. I am reading John Gom
by deepnet 11y ago
[reply to darkmighty comment below, thread depth limitation]
Indeed this is exactly it, evolution is a global method, learning is local.
I am reading John Gomez's thesis where he compares and combines learning and evolution
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/nn/downloads/papers/gomez.phdtr03.pdf http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/nn/downloads/papers/gomez.phd...
Otoro's post on the evolution of his slime volleyball thinking is well worth a read.
http://blog.otoro.net/2015/01/27/neuroevolution-algorithms/ http://blog.otoro.net/2015/01/27/neuroevolution-algorithms/
- darkmighty 11y agoI will check those out, thanks. This is indeed a fascinating topic. I guess every scientist wants to understand learning. The connection comes up in david mckay's Information Theory book too, a reading I definitively recommend, although I haven't been through it properly myself. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn/book.pdf http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn/book.pdf
- deepnet 11y agoMcKays Information Theory is a brilliant read so far, many thanks. Having learning couched in Information Theory terms brings it all right back to Claude Shannon's early work on Reinforcement Learning Chess programs and Alan Turing's ideas about evolving efficient machine code by bitmask genetic recombination.