[lunar_mycroft]

> Behavior does not need to be fully specified at the outset. It could be evaluated after the run.

This doesn't work when the software in question is written by competent humans, let alone the sort of random process you describe. A run of the software only tells you the behavior of the software for a given input, it doesn't tell you all possible behaviors of the software. "I ran the code and the output looked good" is no where near sufficient.

> We've actually done this before in our own technology. We studied birds and their flight characteristics, and took lessons from that for airplane development.

There is a vast chasm between "bioinspiration is sometimes a good technique" and "genetic algorithms are a viable replacement for writing code".

[asdff]

Genetic algorithms created our species, which are far more complex than anything we have written in computer science. I think they have stood up to the tests of creating a viable product for a given behavior.

And with future compute, you will be able to evaluate behavior across an entire range of inputs for countless putative functions. There will be a time when none of this is compute bound. It is today, but in three centuries or more?

[suddenlybananas]

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/student-contributors-did-y...

Evolution ain't all that great.

[troupo]

> Genetic algorithms created our species, which are far more complex than anything we have written in computer science. I think they have stood up to the tests of creating a viable product for a given behavior.

Yes, and our species is a fragile barely functioning machinery with an insane number of failing points, and hillariously bad and inefficiently placed components.