kjm@UTEXAS-11@sri-unix (10/21/82)
How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning pieces of junk rather than better robots. Ken Montgomery -------
REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix (10/22/82)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Date: 21 Oct 1982 at 1009-CDT
From: kjm@UTEXAS-11
How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one
wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to
me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning
pieces of junk rather than better robots.
The first time I read this I took it to be a rhetorical question, as
it was probably intended, but upon second reading I happened to
remember an actual case to point.
At SU-AI about ten years ago we were actively writing display hacks
for the III (Information International Incorporated) display
processor. Somebody wrote a program that was supposed to draw random
stars (points of light that apeared in random positions), and then
wink out later to be replaced by new random stars (there was a queue
of stars that initially grew until it was full, then stars were
recycled to new points in strict revolving order). The first time he
ran the program it had a bug, one instruction was wrong, instead of
drawing random points it drew random rays from the center of the
screen. It was a wonderful accident, much better than the original
idea.
I'm sure if people in this community think hard they can think of
other examples, though rare, of single wrong instructions being
improvements over the original conception. This would seem to be the
correct forum since we have a reason for considering this question
(who would have believed it?).