To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
We present a case study showing a human-competitive design of an evolved antenna that was deployed on a NASA spacecraft in 2006. We were fortunate to develop our antennas in parallel with another group using traditional design methodologies. This allowed us to demonstrate that our techniques were human-competitive because our automatically designed antenna could be directly compared to a human-designed antenna. The antennas described below were evolved to meet a challenging set of mission requirements, most notably the combination of wide beamwidth for a circularly polarized wave and wide bandwidth. Two evolutionary algorithms were used in the development process: one used a genetic algorithm style representation that did not allow branching in the antenna arms; the second used a genetic programming style tree-structured representation that allowed branching in the antenna arms. The highest performance antennas from both algorithms were fabricated and tested, and both yielded very similar performance. Both antennas were comparable in performance to a hand-designed antenna produced by the antenna contractor for the mission, and so we consider them examples of human-competitive performance by evolutionary algorithms. Our design was approved for flight, and three copies of it were successfully flown on NASA's Space Technology 5 mission between March 22 and June 30, 2006. These evolved antennas represent the first evolved hardware in space and the first evolved antennas to be deployed.
We demonstrate the use of genetic programming in the automatic invention of quantum computing circuits that solve problems of potential theoretical and practical significance. We outline a developmental genetic programming scheme for such applications; in this scheme the evolved programs, when executed, build quantum circuits and the resulting quantum circuits are then tested for “fitness” using a quantum computer simulator. Using the PushGP genetic programming system and the QGAME quantum computer simulator we demonstrate the invention of a new, better than classical quantum circuit for the two-oracle AND/OR problem.
Genetic programming is a systematic method for getting computers to automatically solve problems. Genetic programming uses the Darwinian principle of natural selection and analogs of recombination (crossover), mutation, gene duplication, gene deletion, and certain mechanisms of developmental biology to progressively breed, over a series of many generations, an improved population of candidate solutions to a problem. This paper makes the points that genetic programming now routinely delivers human-competitive machine intelligence for problems of automated design and can serve as an automated invention machine.
This paper discusses the application of genetic programming to the synthesis of compound two-dimensional kinematic mechanisms, and benchmarks the results against one of the classical kinematic challenges of 19th century mechanical design. Considerations for selecting a representation for mechanism design are presented, and a number of human-competitive inventions are shown.
Conceptual innovation in mechanical engineering design has been extremely challenging compared to the wide applications of automated design systems in digital circuits. This paper presents an automated methodology for open-ended synthesis of mechanical vibration absorbers based on genetic programming and bond graphs. It is shown that our automated design system can automatically evolve passive vibration absorbers that have performance equal to or better than the standard passive vibration absorbers invented in 1911. A variety of other vibration absorbers with competitive performance are also evolved automatically using a desktop PC in less than 10 h.
To support the concurrent design processes of mechatronic subsystems, unified mechatronics modeling and cooperative body–brain coevolutionary synthesis are developed. In this paper, both body-passive physical systems and brain-active control systems can be represented using the bond graph paradigm. Bond graphs are combined with genetic programming to evolve low-level building blocks into systems with high-level functionalities including both topological configurations and parameter settings. Design spaces of coadapted mechatronic subsystems are automatically explored in parallel for overall design optimality. A quarter-car suspension system case study is provided. Compared with conventional design methods, semiactive suspension designs with more creativity and flexibility are achieved through this approach.
This paper describes how genetic programming has been used as an invention machine to automatically synthesize complete designs for four optical lens systems that duplicated the functionality of previously patented lens systems. The automatic synthesis of the complete design is done ab initio, that is, without starting from a preexisting good design and without prespecifying the number of lenses, the topological arrangement of the lenses, or the numerical or nonnumerical parameters associated with any lens. One of the genetically evolved lens systems infringed a previously issued patent, whereas the others were noninfringing novel designs that duplicated (or improved upon) the performance specifications contained in the patents. One of the patents was issued in the 21st century. The designs were created in a substantially similar and routine way, suggesting that the approach described in the paper can be readily applied to other similar problems in the field of optical design. The genetically evolved designs are instances of human-competitive results produced by genetic programming in the field of optical design.
Although it is known that quantum computers can solve certain computational problems exponentially faster than classical computers, only a small number of quantum algorithms have been developed so far. Designing such algorithms is complicated by the rather nonintuitive character of quantum physics. In this paper we present a genetic programming system that uses some new techniques to develop and improve quantum algorithms. We have used this system to develop two formerly unknown quantum algorithms. We also address a potential deficiency of the quantum decision tree model used to prove lower bounds on the query complexity of the parity problem.
In many ways, ethics is concerned with authentic human development. In this regard, we will look at the different ethical systems in Chapter 3 and the topic of psychology and computer ethics in Chapter 7. Before we do that, a sketch is presented here of the relationship between computers and a humanistic view of human development.
From the beginning of time until 1980 there had only been about one million computers in existence. Even considering that the first electronic computer was produced in 1946, the exponential increase in the production of computers in the last few decades has been nothing short of incredible. It seems that the computer revolution is having an impact on our society equal to that of the Industrial Revolution.
Consider this prediction made in 1979 by Alfred Bork, a physics professor at the University of California at Irvine who has done pioneering work with educational computers: “By the year 2000 the major way of learning at all levels, and in almost all subject areas will be through the interactive use of computers.” What is it about the computer that made Professor Bork think that, within two decades, the computer would become the major instrument of learning?
I believe the reason is that, physiologically and psychologically, the computer is the most natural of human learning instruments. Consider that the computer is basically a replica of the human nervous system.
The Center for the Study of Ethics at the Illinois Institute of Technology lists on its Web site forty-seven current codes of ethics relating to computing and information systems. Two of these codes that pertain to large numbers of professionals in the computing field are the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. The latter code is a joint project of the ACM and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). A third document presented in this chapter, the Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics, is an early computer ethics code meant for popular consumption. It was produced by the Computer Ethics Institute, a project of the Brookings Institution located in Washington, D.C.
ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
Adopted by ACM Council 10/16/92.
Preamble
Commitment to ethical professional conduct is expected of every member (voting members, associate members, and student members) of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
This Code, consisting of 24 imperatives formulated as statements of personal responsibility, identifies the elements of such a commitment. It contains many, but not all, issues professionals are likely to face. Section 1 outlines fundamental ethical considerations, while Section 2 addresses additional, more specific considerations of professional conduct. Statements in Section 3 pertain more specifically to individuals who have a leadership role, whether in the workplace or in a volunteer capacity such as with organizations like ACM. Principles involving compliance with this Code are given in Section 4.
Almost everyone would agree on the need for ethical standards. The problem comes in determining how those standards are to be derived. The area of philosophy known as “metaethics” is helpful in this task. However, metaethics is subject to misunderstanding. William Halverson regards metaethics as “The generic name for inquiries that have as their object the language of moral appraisal.” This definition reflects the viewpoint of a philosophy known as Philosophical Analysis. Metaethics is perhaps better conceived of as the generic name for inquiries about the source of moral judgments (i.e., about the foundation of moral judgments) and how such judgments can be justified. Taken in this sense, metaethics is not about isolated individual judgments concerning whether certain actions are right or wrong. It is about how a particular worldview – or more precisely, a weltanschauung – underlies and determines the formulation of such ethical judgments. This is an abstract way of saying, “What you think the meaning of life is, determines how you live it.”
Before one can make a judgment on whether a particular action is right or wrong, one must have adopted a weltanschauung, that is, have made an assumption that life and reality have a particular meaning. After that, one can ask whether a particular action is in harmony with one's basic understanding of the meaning of life and reality and thus one can judge whether that action is right or wrong.
At the beginning of a study of computer ethics we need to have some understanding of how computing has developed in society. In one sense, computers have been around for a long time, and in another, they are a fairly recent phenomenon. Historically, the first computers were simply fingers and toes – digital computers in the literal sense. They were simple tools used for counting. As calculation became more complex, other tools began to be used to leverage the calculating load. This technology developed along the lines of sticks and stones, then the abacus about 1000 BCE in China, and finally the machines produced during the period of formal mechanics.
Like the railroad, mechanical computers were invented in the United Kingdom. The inventor of the first mechanical computer was Charles Babbage (1791–1871). In the early 1820s he began work on a model of a machine he called the Difference Engine. The purpose of this machine was to calculate numbers for use in mathematical tables. In the early 1830s he turned his attention to work on a programmable Analytical Engine, which was intended to use punched cards. This machine, like the Difference Engine, never went into production. Part of the problem was Babbage's continual rethinking of his plans for the engines. The other part of the problem was the lack of available tools that would produce materials of the tolerance that he required.