Not that I necessarily agree with the above poster, but this:
> How are you going to improve something you dont understand?
Is just nonsense. Evolution understands nothing, yet produced a mind. Closer to us, the early people who produced all the crops that led to the shift to agriculture, and it's later improvements, absolutely did not understand how any of it worked.
Evaluation and selection are sufficient to improve things. Understanding is useful, but optional.
These are just absurdly remote analogies that have nothing to with how ML algorithms have developed thus far, nor how they will develop in the the immediate future.
So how would you "improve" here an now any algorithm. Create and insert random code and evaluate? Jeepers people are losing touch with reality.
> How are you going to improve something you dont understand?
Is just nonsense. Evolution understands nothing, yet produced a mind. Closer to us, the early people who produced all the crops that led to the shift to agriculture, and it's later improvements, absolutely did not understand how any of it worked.
Evaluation and selection are sufficient to improve things. Understanding is useful, but optional.