Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Genetic Algorithm building a little car

wreck.devisland.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#51

Post by demallien »

kirse wrote: post #31
nsrivast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of genetic algorithms is NOT to replicate evolution. Like you mention, evolution has no end goal whereas engineers usually have very explicit end goals. (Other problems include time constraints and computing power!) The point of genetic algorithms is to exploit the principle of natural selection under very specific constraints and explicitly constructed utility functions that are likely to lead to a better…

+1 Thanks for the explanation. I can fully understand both the legitimacy and the desire to model the specific process of genetic propagation, but was somewhat confused how exactly that logically validates it as an accurate representation of its function in evolution as a whole. It's pretty clear one model has a designer and the other does not, and you certainly agree that the existence of a designer is more than jus…

If you mean that there is a 'designer' of the system, then sure, there is. But if you mean that there is a 'designer' of the little model cars, then no, you are absolutely wrong (except in the sense that the GA itself, a mindless mathematical process, is a designer).

In other words, this is a pretty faithful model of evolution if we postulate that once the first self-replicating organism came into being (once the programmer had written the model/fitness function), no further interference is necessary - a purely mathematical process will lead to artifacts that appear 'designed'.

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#53

Post by [deleted] »

kirse wrote: post #24
andr wrote: post #5

Ok this is the second evolutionary computing post of today that does something cool with little or no explanation of what's going on. Stop teasing.

How exactly is it evolutionary computing when there is a designer in the equation (programmer) who puts constraints on the algorithm by the simple act of coding it and running it on systems that he designed? This seems more like "computing to model the process of genetic adaptation". You can't label it evolutionary when there's a designer in the equation. The very definition of the evolutionary process does not allow…

[deleted]

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#54

Post by kirse »

demallien wrote: post #50
nsrivast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of genetic algorithms is NOT to replicate evolution. Like you mention, evolution has no end goal whereas engineers usually have very explicit end goals. (Other problems include time constraints and computing power!) The point of genetic algorithms is to exploit the principle of natural selection under very specific constraints and explicitly constructed utility functions that are likely to lead to a better…

I beg to differ - evolution, in the 'life on Earth' sense has a very very specific goal - to reproduce genes as successfully as possible. To date, we know no life that does not seek this primal goal.

You clearly misunderstand your own theory, because this specific paper written by an evolutionist (on TalkOrigins, the shrine of evidence for Evolution) reinforces the view on why biological evolution has no goal: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html

When Dawkins talks about genes maximising their representation in the gene pool, this is a metaphor not an explanation. Genes just replicate. It happens that those that out-replicate others end up out-surviving them. There is no 'goal' to genetic behaviour.

Evolutionists are always screaming about the evidence, and it's rarely been debated that biological evolution is completely devoid of a designer, purpose, intelligence, or end goal anywhere in the process. That's one of the basic truths you get out of the naturalistic assumptions that base biological Evolution.

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#55

Post by RK »

DavidSJ wrote: post #43
kirse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is it evolutionary computing when there is a designer in the equation (programmer) who puts constraints on the algorithm by the simple act of coding it and running it on systems that he designed? This seems more like "computing to model the process of genetic adaptation". You can't label it evolutionary when there's a designer in the equation. The very definition of the evolutionary process does not allow…

Your definition of evolution is incorrect. Evolution is a process which occurs in any system that has: * replication * selection pressure * variation No claims about that system's progeny are made by evolution.

Evolution simply means change over time.

Your description is more akin to natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#56

Post by DavidSJ »

RK wrote: post #55
DavidSJ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of evolution is incorrect. Evolution is a process which occurs in any system that has: * replication * selection pressure * variation No claims about that system's progeny are made by evolution.

Evolution simply means change over time. Your description is more akin to natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.

Words have multiple definitions. Yes, "evolution" simply meant change over time, prior to Darwin's publication of the Theory of Evolution. In the context of this conversation, "evolution" refers to the process Darwin was describing, but in reference to digital individuals rather than biological organisms.

Certainly, the word "evolution" in none of its permutations describes how the process started.

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#58

Post by demallien »

kirse wrote: post #54
demallien wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ - evolution, in the 'life on Earth' sense has a very very specific goal - to reproduce genes as successfully as possible. To date, we know no life that does not seek this primal goal.

You clearly misunderstand your own theory, because this specific paper written by an evolutionist (on TalkOrigins, the shrine of evidence for Evolution) reinforces the view on why biological evolution has no goal: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html When Dawkins talks about genes maximising their representation in the gene pool, this is a metaphor not an explanation. Genes just replicate. It happe…

1) It's not my theory 2) Whilst it is true that individual genes do not have goals, it is not true that natural evolution, as a search algorithm, does not. When we talk about goals for GAs (which is of course the context of this very discussion we are having), we are specifically talking about high values of the fitness function of the GA. In the case of natural evolution, the 'goal' is to reproduce a gene as much as possible. Note, this is a goal of the GA, not of the gene, and the usage of the word here does not indicate an actually entity with a motivation, but simply reuses terminology that is quite common in discussion of search algorithms (evolution being but one example of these).

Re: Genetic Algorithm building a little car

#59

Post by cnu »

jonknee wrote: post #3
tc7 wrote: post #2

Cool-looking, but I'm not quite sure what's going on. Explanations?

"This is a GA I wrote to design a little car for a specific terrain. It runs in real-time in Flash. The fitness function is the distance travelled before the red circles hit the ground, or time runs out. The degrees of freedom are the size and inital positions of the four circles, and length, spring constant and damping of the eight springs. The graph shows the "mean" and "best" fitness. I should really make a new ve…

What does the graph depict? What is the black and green lines mean?
Post reply on HN