
Pack Hunters of the Silicon Savannas - edward
http://hintjens.com/blog:122
======
mnemonicsloth
tldr: malware evolves into superintelligence. I'm afraid evolution doesn't
work like that. Here's a good book (some math):

[https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Dynamics-Exploring-
Equat...](https://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Dynamics-Exploring-Equations-
Life/dp/0674023382)

The long and the short of it is that software can't evolve because too much of
its genome space is lethal, and the non-lethal parts are non-contiguous, so
the quasispecies decoheres -- if it survives at all -- instead of climbing to
the top of the fitness landscape.

~~~
whack
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're assuming that "software evolution"
refers to random mutations in the software's core source code?

If so, I might be inclined to agree with you on that narrow point, but
software/AI programs can still evolve in other major ways. Assuming an AI that
operates on the basis of Neural Networks for example, it could evolve its
number of layers, the size of each layer, its sensitivity to new information,
and other such parameters.

It's not clear if the concept of predator-prey makes any sense in the context
of software programs, but invader-defender and virus-host relationships could
certainly exist in a advanced software ecosystem, similar to in nature.

The premise of the essay seems a little too far-fetched for me to seriously
worry about it, but it does seem like a great premise for a sci-fi novel.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
If you insert a random nucleotide into a DNA sequence, the protein you get is
usually very similar to the old one. But if you insert a random branch
instruction into the object code of a working program, the results are
somewhat different.

The problem with software evolution is that the adjacent points in program
representation space -- whether it's source space or binary , neural network
parameters or whatever -- are not viable individuals that can participate in
an evolving population. They code for junk -- stillborn offspring. This isn't
terribly surprising. The apparatus that powers living systems and makes DNA
sequence space so nice took almost a billion years to evolve. Building a such
a system _in silico_ , one that is both that flexible and that forgiving, is
not likely to happen anytime soon.

But you're right. I'd totally read the sci-fi novel.

~~~
eldondev
> But if you insert a random branch instruction into the object code of a
> working program, the results are somewhat different.

Maybe, maybe not. I've observed lots of dead code in my time developing, where
inserting random instructions would have no impact whatsoever. Inserting
random instructions into a give program may have negative side effects, it may
not. But (without having read your reference, though I might, or the linked
article here), most of the source and object code that exists is highly
specified and functionally dense. These are the ways we code when we want
something very optimized and not broadly adaptive. Essentially you could say
that almost all of the code we are writing is rain man style code. Good at
some few sets of things in specific conditions. I think it is possible that
there will exist (although perhaps not written in the same way) code where
less of the genome is lethal, and there is more "wiggle room" for code to
expand and change as a system. The stillborn offspring we might encounter if
todays systems were "genetically evolved" are the equivalent of disseminated
haploid genetic material. I think the conditions for conception (if you'll
ride with me on my beaten metaphor) are not so far off as you may think, even
if they are very different in terms of compilation/process
execution/parallelism. While much of the code we write still mirrors the
serial logic we often apply in the sciences, it is neither a foregone
conclusion that software will continue exclusively in that way, nor a lack of
capabilities of modern infrastructure to achieve parallelism comparable to
some biological systems.

------
mwcampbell
> I've been running somewhat sadistic live experiments over the last years.
> The results show that loosely-organized groups of "average" people will
> systematically beat tightly-coupled teams of "brilliant" people, when
> solving the same problems, on the same playing field. We have done twin
> studies: take the same software DNA, fork it, and raise in two opposed
> environments. The outcome is dramatically clear. The crowd beats the genius.
> Not just once either. It happens over and over.

I'd like to know more about this. Has he written about these experiments
elsewhere?

~~~
PieterH
The specific case was the fork of ZeroMQ in 2011 to create Crossroads.io, in
which the two dominant contributors took the project and created a head-on
competitor. They used their own preferred process. The ZeroMQ project switched
to a community-driven process (C4). Crossroads died after a short while. It
then spawned Nanomsg, which tried again to beat the ZeroMQ community in this
game. Again it failed. That spawned several dark forks, none of which has had
any traction. I wrote about this in
[http://hintjens.com/blog:112](http://hintjens.com/blog:112).

I didn't provoke the fork, really, yet when it happened, it seemed like a
perfect experiment. Same DNA, two different environments.

~~~
mwcampbell
I think the sample size may be too small to draw any general conclusions.

~~~
PieterH
This is absolutely true, and why it can only aspire to science at this stage.
Many factors were involved, such as network effects.

------
nedsma
"Are things better now? For most of us, life is easy. We are fed and pampered,
kept healthy and alive. We left our planet with our new owners, and never
looked back. Perhaps wild humans still roam there. Disease, conflict, poverty,
hunger, waste: these are historical concepts, unknown to us moderns.

Does the immortality compensate for utter loss of self-determination? Did the
Borg(s) save us from ourselves, or did they break the branch of human history?
When they bred the predator out of us, did they raise us up, or condemn us to
evolutionary death? It is unknowable."

In the Matrix movie there was an interesting moment when Cypher grew tired of
all real world struggle and wanted to return into his cocoon, take the blue
pill back and to enjoy relative comfort in the illusory world of the Matrix.
Self-determination, obviously, didn't work for him.

------
chatmasta
If you like this line of thinking, you will appreciate the recent book "The
Seventh Sense" which looks at the upcoming world from the perspective of
network science. I'm about halfway through and highly recommend it.

------
ajani
As much as I enjoy fictional, armchair partial-cosmology, this evolution-based
explanation of every aspect of humans - intelligence, social behaviour etc, is
just so unimaginative. Couldn't evolution itself evolve to a point where it
diverges from the conventional structures held to compose evolution?

Besides, if self evolved as a response to cheating, we must explain cheating
outside of the concept of self. Why would you cheat if you are not separate as
an individual?

~~~
joshmarlow
"Couldn't evolution itself evolve to a point where it diverges from the
conventional structures held to compose evolution?"

In theory, that's what intelligence/civilization is doing isn't it? We're
replacing one optimization process (natural selection/mutation/etc) with a new
one (forethought/planning/etc). When we talk about genetic engineering, or AI,
or anything like that, we're talking about replacing evolution with
intelligent design. We're evolution++.

------
zelias
Well, that ending was unexpected, though certainly foreshadowed appropriately.

------
msane
removed, apologies

~~~
metaphorm
thats some serious mud-slinging. would you care to at least explain why you
think that?

~~~
msane
I regret posting this and will delete it. it is not meant to be mud slinging.
I care for him. I dont know him personally. Though i have interacted with him
on lists and he is charming and knowledgeable and generous with his time. I
just think he went a little bonkers at some point. Read the book and come to
your own conclusion.

