Going over the posts, there seem to be a lot of people still of the opinion that machines can only do what they are programmed to do. Maybe this will help to shake that bias. All the machines in this demonstration were evolved using genetic algorithms, which means that their design was not imposed by a human, but are the result of competition for survival by a number of different designs.
You can read more here:
Virtual Evolved Creatures
Genetic Algorithms (Wikipedia)
Brian Horn | 27-Feb-07 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
This makes me think about things a little differently. These machines have still begun from the programming of humans, and then have gone on from there. Some would argue that this is like what God has done with humans. But at the same time, these computer models are not exhibiting humanity, only the will to survive, which we see in animals in nature. Are animals intelligent then? Some are, but others only exhibit certain traits because they must in order to survive. I’m not sure where i’m going with this.. haha
Daniel Estrada | 27-Feb-07 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
Ah, forget ‘intelligence’. I’m with Turing- that question is totally meaningless. What matters is that these are machines that are behaving in ways that no one could have predicted. This goes beyond mere ’surprise’- if you’ll excuse the oxymoron, this is genuine artificial life.
Angela Kinsella | 27-Feb-07 at 7:59 pm | Permalink
I agree with Brian in that humans are sort of becoming like God in the sense that they created something (besides more humans) that can produce and evolve into a stronger creature. I would also have to say that animals are intelligent to the extent that they understand each other (and sometimes humans) and are able to adapt to their surroundings to survive. These creatures are pretty amazing and make me think about the endless possibilities that come with artificial life, what’s next?
Ashley Graham | 27-Feb-07 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
I agree with both Angela and Brian in their decision that the objects in this video are struggling to adapt inorder to survive. Plants overcome this struggle by growing towards the sun. Mammals show these adaptations too. For example, the Giant Panda has addapted a wrist bone into a thumb-like appendage to aid with grasping food and other objects. These objects are not really living, in the sense of eating, sleeping, and goal fulfillment, but they certainly are simulating our ability to adapt.
Daniel Estrada | 27-Feb-07 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
Ashley: Why do you think these creatures don’t have genuine goal fulfillment? Evolutionary algorithms operate by setting a standard for success at a task; its ‘goal’ is just to perform a task better than its competitors. The creatures at the beginning of the clip had the goal of moving quickly; the soccer playing creatures at the end of the clip had the goal of ending up closer to the ball than its opponent.
I’m not arguing that these creatures are alive in the biological sense, but it seems hasty to argue that they don’t have real goals.
Ashley Swarts | 27-Feb-07 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
I have been arguing both sides of the Turing/Searl debate because I agree with many points on each side. However, I don’t feel like this post about genetic algorithms pulls me any more towards Turing’s side because weren’t they ultimately still created from humans, regardless of how they evolved later on? Humans still created the starting point for them and they wouldn’t even exist without human intelligence.
And Brian’s comment also brings me back to the old argument of whether or not there is a designer of the universe and humans. If humans are creating AI like these, then isn’t it possible that God created humans who evolved similarly?
Rutvi Shah | 28-Feb-07 at 10:45 am | Permalink
I understand that the creatures are motivated by the idea of acheiving the goal. In this case, the goal was to capture the ball before its opponent. It was interesting to see that as they were able to catch the ball, each creature evolved so it could acheive its goal more efficiently the next time. This can be traced back to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest or natural selection. These objects are not evolving by themselves as they are programmed by humans, but show an excellent simulation about evolution that has taken place on earth.
Daniel Estrada | 28-Feb-07 at 10:55 am | Permalink
Rutvi: you said “These objects are not evolving by themselves as they are programmed by humans”
There are a lot of misunderstandings in this statement.
First of all, no creature evolves by itself. Evolution takes place over several generations of creatures, with small adaptive variations occurring from one generation to the next.
The same thing happens in evolutionary algorithms. The programmers built a few simple creature, and then put them in competition with each other. The most successful creatures pass on their program to future generations, with small modifications of the code; then the competition takes place all over again.
It is important to note that the variations of the code are randomized, so the human programmer is not responsible for any of the changes that take place. The programmer is just responsible for developing the initial simple creature, and the criteria for selecting the most successful creature; otherwise, the changes and adaptations that are made are entirely the result of independent, autonomous evolution.
Kerry Phelan | 28-Feb-07 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
I agree with a lot that has been said in this discussion. I believe that these machine were originally programmed by humans and that they have gradually evolved, without the help of humans, in order to survive. A lot of what happens to these machines is human-like in certain ways; the evolution, the goals, and the achievements. It truly is fascinating.
Jeffery Villalobos | 28-Feb-07 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
This youtube video has dramatically changed my view on how machines work. I believed that machines were restrcited to the program in which humans placed on them. I still believe that most machines are like this, but i can see how machines can think for themselves now outside of the basic rules that humans program into them.
I think its interesting that the machines compete against each other and the winners pass along their “genes” with a touch of modification to “evolve”. This clip puts things in a much better perspective as to why machines can think.
William Barrett | 28-Feb-07 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
I think I agree with Jeffery that machines are initially restricted to the programming of humans. However, after watching this video I understand how evolution that has occured with creatures on earth is happening similarly with these machines in this video. Seeing their developed survival skills passed on is very interesting because it shows how machines and AI are taking more steps and similarities to being like humans. However, I am still critical with the machines that their will to survive or be better than their competitor is not because of any emotion but simply because this is only what they know they are supposed to do.
Amanda Jakstas | 28-Feb-07 at 11:25 pm | Permalink
Wow this video was extremely interesting and almost creeped me out a little. When I think of machines and computers, I think that they were programmed to do exactly what we want them to. I find it fascinating how these machines were programmed to be in competition with each other, and how that was the only human input. Not only did the machines find ways to survive, they adapted and changed. I find that creepy and remarkable at the same time.
Erica Yuenger | 01-Mar-07 at 8:54 am | Permalink
“I am still critical with the machines that their will to survive or be better than their competitor is not because of any emotion but simply because this is only what they know they are supposed to do.”
Isn’t that what survival is though? The will to survive is a basic instinct, and therefore is not necessarily attached to emotion. Sure, in human competition situations, there are emotions involved such as nervousness and pride, but in real situations where a being’s survival is threatened, we react on basic instinct as our adrenaline is raised.
That being said, I think it is interesting to consider how these creatures could develop if they were allowed to continue to evolve. If you believe in evolution, then it is probable that in the days of the first humans, we did not portray emotion either, but behaved solely upon instinct. Somewhere down the line, however, we developed these emotions as well as ways of communicating them to other people. Obviously, these creatures may continue to develop into total domination creatures, but because they were only programmed to survive and compete, they will never develop emotion on their own.
Tariq Mohammed | 01-Mar-07 at 10:34 am | Permalink
I would have to agree with Amanda and say this video was rather strange but very interesting. Machines are built for a specific purpose and then programmed with algorithms and code to carry it out. In class we discussed about how Deep Blue was built by IBM and then programmed by several grandmasters to outsmart Kasparov. Now after watching this video it sheds new light on the concept that machines are evolving and can do things in the way they see fit. Weird yes, but definitely cool.
Ryan Riordan | 01-Mar-07 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
the video was pretty interesting. it seemed like evolution at a rapid pace and it was interesting to watch the machines develop senses of competition. competition is something that really drives evolution and you could see a bit of that iin the video. if it’s true that these programs were just given a base to start off of, then this evolution is pretty amazing. it is very different from human evolution and interaction, but if that is not really the point than it really doesnt matter that the machines are different from humans. in the end they both have some sort of evolution.
Wes Gotschall | 01-Mar-07 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
I don’t think I’m too far off when I say that this would qualify as Turing’s response to Lady Lovelace’s critique. These are programs that can learn and evolve according to the situation it is in. While it might not be able to learn knowledge as we think of it, it can learn some facts about its environment and what it needs to do to be better suited to live in that place. As everything evolves, I’m sure that eventually machines will be able to learn and evolve much like these programs can.
Adam Domanico | 01-Mar-07 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
I am not convinced that machines can “evolve”. I think we should clarify the difference between learning and evolving. Yes, machines can learn from past experiences and do not just rely on their programing; however, machines cannot change their being and mutate to better fit into their environment. Evolution is one of the complexities that make living things so unique. I am not saying that machines that can evolve will never be invented but machines today cannot do that. Random comment but I thought it should be addressed since it, in my opinion, is one of the biggest distinctions that separate the living from machines.
Daniel Estrada | 01-Mar-07 at 11:20 pm | Permalink
Adam: You said “machines cannot change their being and mutate to better fit into their environment.”
This seems to me to be patently false. Look at telephones today, and telephones 20 years ago. Are you saying that the technology hasn’t changed to suit a changing environment?
Sure, thats not biological evolution, because the machines are not responsible for passing information from one generation to the next.
However, in this video, the creatures ARE passing ‘genetic’ information to offspring, and each passing of genetic code is coupled with slight modifications so that the species slowly changes over time to suit its environment. In this case, the ‘environment’ is the virtual world they are floating around in.
This isn’t just learning, this is genuine evolution. Its not biological evolution, but it is structurally analogous. If you want to object to this claim, you need to give a reason why the two are different; merely declaring your opinion isn’t convincing.