Okay, but the statement did not limit itself. In any case, the original topics of discussions were two. One involving the cubic function and a granted patent to a human designed circuit. This assertion was made by a poster
Deal with it. In this case, it made a cubic function generator circuit which outperforms the best that all electronic engineers were capable of producing in all the history of electronics.
The circuit at the top was patented in 2000, and is the current state of the art. The circuit at the bottom was produced by pure unaided evolution, and outperforms the human version.
I asked for evidence of this performance edge. None has been produced. I found the patent and examined the circuit and it involves 5 transistors and 4 diodes. The circuit used in the "runoff" has 9 transistors. Somebody changed something. Despite this not one graph comparing the two circuits has been produced here. I suspect that the performance edge is a paper product. Something that the emulating program has produced. Why do I surmise that? Because in evolving the circuit I doubt that each individual circuit was constructed in order to measure its performance of the cubic function. That would be impractical.
From the article ---A genetic programming run typically spawns a population of tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals that evolve over dozens or hundreds of generations. A weeklong run on a laptop computer is sufficient to produce half of the human-competitive results listed in the box on the preceding page; however, all six of the inventions patented after 2000 required more horsepower than that.
The second topic relates to the assertion that many patents have been issued for inventions produced by genetic programming. The same article that had the cubic function circuit in it also made mention of a patent application ---
We have filed a patent application that covers both the new rules and the new controller topologies. If (as we expect) the patent is granted, we believe that it will be the first one granted for an invention created by genetic programming.
This was in the article with the date of February 2003. Clearly, it has not been granted. It does not matter if it is still pending for it to be evidence that there are no patents for inventions created by genetic programming. That still leaves the ability to produce the evidence of many such inventions, but no one has done that.