Using artificial intelligence to understand nature/evolution
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:23 pm
Interesting article I read just now. Whilst programming AI-based machines has been common for quite some time, the slant on this experiment has incidentally provided a glimpse at the "unglimpseable" in evolution and biological conditioning.
It tells of robots that have evolved to cheat in order to further their own achievement against a given yardstick.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... -to-cheat/
We can see even 20 years ago, on relatively elementary hardware/awareness of practice, there were computer experiments done to show how Natural Selection takes place, and why it's an accepted theory in science.
Opposition to NS (invariably based on personal faith, rather than scientific reasoning) suggests that such complexity in nature cannot come without an initial design or even panspermia, but this documentary elegantly shows how self-created structure can give rise to attempts to better an organism; the failed attempts being hidden by statistical inference. It's the exact opposite of chance, given the gauge enforced by the surrounding environment.
This is part 1 - please click on the suggested other parts in order to watch sequentially.
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fgf-g8jJ7Q
It tells of robots that have evolved to cheat in order to further their own achievement against a given yardstick.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... -to-cheat/
While we obviously can't literally observe billions of years of evolution (thus spawning the necessary prefix "Theory of..."), computer simulations provide a very useful tool when mimicking uncertainty in beings attempting to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and work towards a goal.In an experiment that sounds like a deleted scene from one of the Terminator movies, robots with artificial animal-inspired brains quickly evolved to deceive one another.
The robots — soccer ball-sized assemblages of wheels, sensors and flashing light signals, coordinated by a digital neural network — were placed by their designers in an arena, with paper discs signifying “food” and “poison” at opposite ends. Finding and staying beside the food earned the robots points.
At first, the robots moved and emitted light randomly. But their innocence didn’t last. After each iteration of the trial, researchers picked the most successful robots, copied their digital brains and used them to program a new robot generation, with a dash of random change thrown in for mutation.
Soon the robots learned to follow the signals of others who’d gathered at the food. But there wasn’t enough space for all of them to feed, and the robots bumped and jostled for position. As before, only a few made it through the bottleneck of selection. And before long, they’d evolved to mute their signals, thus concealing their location.
Signaling in the experiment never ceased completely. An equilibrium was reached in the evolution of robot communication, with light-flashing mostly subdued but still used, and different patterns still emerging. The researchers say their system’s dynamics are a simple analogue of those found in nature, where some species, such as moths, have evolved to use a biologist-baffling array of different signaling strategies.
“Evolutionary robotic systems implicitly encompass many behavioral components … thus allowing for an unbiased investigation of the factors driving signal evolution,” the researchers wrote Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The great degree of realism provided by evolutionary robotic systems thus provides a powerful tool for studies that cannot readily be performed with real organisms.”
Of course, it might not be long before robots directed towards self-preservation and possessing brains modeled after — if not containing — biological components are considered real organisms.
We can see even 20 years ago, on relatively elementary hardware/awareness of practice, there were computer experiments done to show how Natural Selection takes place, and why it's an accepted theory in science.
Opposition to NS (invariably based on personal faith, rather than scientific reasoning) suggests that such complexity in nature cannot come without an initial design or even panspermia, but this documentary elegantly shows how self-created structure can give rise to attempts to better an organism; the failed attempts being hidden by statistical inference. It's the exact opposite of chance, given the gauge enforced by the surrounding environment.
This is part 1 - please click on the suggested other parts in order to watch sequentially.
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fgf-g8jJ7Q
