Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterhunt | Hacker News Reader

That's a great point. Specifically, it initially seems like it would be a bad idea to have an automated system repair code that humans will need to maintain. However, I've looked at some of the examples of fixes this project has created and many of them are relatively small, and perhaps handing them to humans for code review, cleanup and "humanizing" might be a valid way to go.

View on HN

I've often thought about evolutionary engineering like this, comparing it to biological systems. The human body (and really all biological life) is a remarkable machine -- it runs for decades, much longer than just about anything people build, and under most circumstances can repair itself quite impressively. But if it needs repair beyond what it can do itself, you run into a harrowing mess, with difficulty swapping in new parts, some parts doing double duty, difficulty separating various systems, etc.

It's also not extensible at all, which is a big problem for software engineering. An evolutionarily derived codebase might do really well at the problem that provided the parameters for its initial evolution, but trying to get it to do something else might be difficult or impossible. I suppose you could use more evolutionary iterations to get it to do something else, but maybe it'd be easier to start from scratch at that point?

There was a fascinating example of strong dependence on the initial problem specification in an early hardware-evolution experiment in the 90s. The evolved chip for an audio-processing task was massively smaller than the best human-designed chip, which turned out to be because rather than sticking to digital-logic design, the evolutionary process had taken advantage of electromagnetic interference between circuit components as a core aspect of the design (this was possible because the evolution was done on FPGAs, not in a simulator). But as a result, it only worked at the temperature it was evolved at!

One of the papers: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices96/pa...

Yeah, I remember hearing about this! Wasn't there also a creepy case where an evolved circuit involved FPGA that weren't attached to anything else in the circuit, and yet were still needed for the thing to work properly? I seem to recall it similarly involved electromagnetic interference.

I think that's the same one.

Yep, see the discussion around Figure 7 in this section of the paper: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices96/no...

They drew a graph of any units on any connected path from input to output, and then ran a search to see if any others had any effects, by clamping random units' values to 0 or 1 and seeing if that degraded the result. They found that one unconnected unit in particular degraded performance significantly (the bottom/right gray-colored one in Fig. 7): it had several active connections routed through it, but its own output went nowhere. So they hypothesized that it was modulating the signal in a way not captured by the mathematical abstraction of the FPGA as a digital circuit.

One has to wonder then .. What if there was a spec to make sure it worked in any temperature? Would it not then attempt to evolve to fit the spec, perhaps fixing the temperature problem..?

Yeah, that's what some of the followup work is. Since it's evolving physical hardware, though, temperature is a real physical quantity that affects performance, not a spec that it takes as input. So they experiment with varying the temperature during the evolution process, which should weed out members of the GA population that were only fit at very specific temperatures. That does complicate the setup a bit, because you have to actually vary the temperature using heater/AC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com