BCS Wrote: > Hello Strtr, > > > BCS Wrote: > > > >> OTOH, some would argue that Walter is still right by saying that if > >> you don't know what is happening, then you've got a bad algorithm. > >> > > Yes, all algorithms created by genetic programming are bad ;) > > Note I didn't say what I thought. (As it happens, I think GA is only valid > as a last resort.) I was talking about GP in specific, but talking about GA in general I would say it could be a great beginning in a lot of scientific research I've seen. Time and time again intuition has been proven a bad gamble in those situations. Especially with the enormous amount of information streaming out of most scientific devices you don't want to manually sift through all the data.
> > > And your brain is one big bad algorithm as well of course.. > > Just because I don't understand an algo doesn't imply that no one does. As > for the brain, there are people who don't consider the brain the result of > anything remotely like GA. But this is not the place to argue that one... What I meant was that I know of nobody who would claim they understand all that is happening in the brain, thus according to your statement making it a bad algorithm. Unrelated of whether it there is a GA basis or not. > > >> However you cut it, these cases are by far the minority. > >> > > But growing. > > Yeah, but (I hope) they will never come anywhere near the majority. A majority wouldn't be necessary for such portability to be a valid issue. I think D is in general an awesome language for artificial intelligence which might hint that the percentage such D users could become significant.
