From the abstract: "a stochastic perturbation method combined with human choice. "
I'm guessing that means a) There's a lot of parameters to twiddle (Not < 10, 100s or 1000s). b) "Success" criteria are complex (it's one of those n-dimensional optimization problems).
c)Prioritizing them is a massive PITA d) This algo (and its UI) implement a "Method of Experiments" process to identify what parameters would give the biggest data take from a shot and e) Then use human judgement to evaluate the result so the operator decides which is "better."
It would seem that building hardware that can run on an 8 min turnaround cycle is at least as important to this as the SW.
A few notes on other fusion systems and fission reactors.
PWR don't run at 1000F they run at around 593F. They run at about 200Atm to stop the water boiling until then. Their efficiency is around 25-30%. Modern high pressure coal/gas/oil boilers can hit 932F, about 35%+. PWR's are only dominant because the USN paid essentially all the development costs for Westinghouse. As power plants they make great submarine drives.
The USN did fund a fusion project directed by the late Dr Bussard (he of interstellar ramjet fame). It was progressing well. His lectures on youtube are interesting for why people don't think tokamaks are very good. I think they are still in business and still making slow progress, more due to lack of funding and the need to improve their modelling SW (their design is not exactly off the shelf).
Both MIT with ARC and a British company text of link plan to use High Temperature Superconductor tapes of Rare Earth Barium Copper at around 20K (which is high temperature to people who are used to liquid He at 4K) with innovative engineering of the tokamak to deliver a net power generating fusion system costing less than $300m to develop. Both plan much higher magnetic fields than ITER, and hence can be much much smaller.
Yes physicists have thought about getting the heat out. Current plans call for a blanket of molten Lithium to absorb the neutrons from the Deuterium Tritium fusion reaction to breed more Tritium without a fission reactor and the run it through an HX to drive a steam turbine at the same conditions as a conventional fired power plant. The wall materials are difficult as they have to take space ship reentry temperature and high radiation fluxes and be repairable/replaceable by remote control. Something like the nose of the space Shuttle (RCC) seems to be a candidate.
And as for a free idea....
Laser fusion systems turn the laser energy into "Extreme Ultra Violet," or (as everyone who isn't trying to sell a wafer fab exposure tool calls it) soft X-rays.in the 250eV range. The EUV tools use 20Kw lasers to hit a liquid metal target to get < 100W of actual exposure energy (IIRC more like 10W), which is not much when you're trying to expose a 300mm dia wafer.
A more direct route would be to use a "Smith Purcell" generator. This uses electrons launched across a diffraction grating of alternating conducting and insulating ridges. There appear to be conflicting theories of how the process works at the quantum level (so plenty of opportunity to optimize it), the grating frequency would be in the nanometre range and the electron beam (ideally a wide wave front) needs to be as close to the grating (roughly) as the grating frequency, IE about 6-7nm period for emissions at right angles to the grating, which needs a near atomically smooth plane. Coupling improves exponentially with distance, so closer is better, without hitting the grating.
The upside is that electron emission is a very efficient process and can be quite fine tuned to a specific emission energy, making acceleration to the level needed to drive the grating quite efficient also, if you can form a layer
I'm guessing there's 2-3 PhD's and a shed load of degrees to be earned building a machine that could make this work.