I make a living in genetic programming, among other so-called AI techniques. I hate the term since my kids and even dog show a level of intelligence I cannot get from a computer. Here comes the big "however." However, we're barely getting started.
I'll first take issue with your use of "carefully selected pseudo-random number". Simply put, no. We're using quantum-effect RNG that we regularly check for entropy. I'm puzzled why you think genetic programming would need pseudorandom numbers.
As far as the computer not doing anything that humans didn't tell it to do, that's true only in the most trivial of senses. You did not address my point that the output of our genetic programming finds ways to solve complex problems that no human really understands.
We've been in the age of Turing complete machines, what, approaching seven decades? Where do you think we'll be in seven centuries? What about seven millenia? What about giving evolution 13 billion years to work?
Now we're both stating ways that Turing complete machines can exist without direction or planning. My way supposes physical laws and mathematics that we know exist and prove increasingly powerful in their predictive ability. You postulate one that has all that plus personality, omniscience, omnipotence, desires, emotion, and a lot more. You're making a profligate assumption. Occam's Razor is more likely to shave your hypothesis than mine.
I made a living from working for the most evil organization on Earth ... US Federal Government. I have a satellite laser pointed at you right now ;-)
Yes, there are more details to X kind of algorithm or Y kind of programming language. All those things matter. I know, been doing computers since the 1970s. And that is a fine thing to know/do. My speciality was database management. But I got into cryptology on the side, because I was bored. So no need to think I attacked your profession. Even if you were a used car salesman, I wouldn't judge. It happens I do know a lot about a couple of things. Including computer science. You can have your own philosophy of math/science ... but that doesn't make that math/science. It is an interpretation. As an engineer/programmer, I don't have the knockers for original research. But thanks to Google, I don't have to. Did you see the great 4 part series on deep learning/3-level neural nets?
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginThese guys do wonderful stuff, on a lot of technical topics. Better than my college professors ;-)
If you want to share what you know of genetic programming, in the computer section of this web site, if it isn't proprietary, then I would be happy to read.
I can't show you my computer work, because it is classified. There are countless topics now on algorithms and computer languages, that nuances all this Turing Machine stuff. But at the bottom, it is just a Turing Machine on paper from 1938. And that doesn't touch all the engineering stuff at someplace like IEEE Spectrum. But computers aren't magic, not even the quantum kind. The problem with technology, and the public domain, is that so many people think this is a "Wishing Tree". That any scifi that someone can imagine, is an eventual, and cheap, technical thing.
