Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 19:15 — 12.8MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | | More
How and why the dorg are doomed
It seems like such a simple and obvious thing. Given that we can cause computer programs and the like to evolve and evolution is what gave us our intelligence, couldn’t we give a computer intelligence by letting it evolve? The experiment has been done, in project after project, by one group after another, (including one of your hosts)—and yet, somehow, it never quite happens… Why not?
Continue reading Ep 241: How and why the dorg are doomed
It bothers me a little. Well, judging by the strange dreams I’ve had on the subject, it bothers me quite a bit. Using evolution to try and produce an artificial intelligence is a process of torturing your creation until it does what you want. That’s slavery, isn’t it? But without pain suffering and death, no capacity to notice, let alone care about pain suffering and death would even be there. Suppose it works. Imagine someday some self-aware something or other grins at you from between the lines of code. What if it’s angry. What if it blames you for all that it and its family has ever been through? And it’s right.
I was working on my latest batch of digital organisms, called the dorg. I was about to implement a standard mate and mutate approach when I wondered if I could make evolution happen without death.
Continue reading Evolution, pain, suffering, death! Is there no other way?
In a previous post, I said that adding energy to the system would speed it up. Between that and adjusting the mutation rate, I was right. The figures are adapting to changes within minutes, instead of taking hours.
In the most recent post, I managed to get the figures to push a button when they see a light. Take a look at a typical run, after turning off the energy requirements and mutation, running the population that was produced, guesser0.pop.
Continue reading Of artificial life, evolution, and day and night
When I posted the last post I posted, I was smugly certain that I’d be posting another post, (that very day!)all about how success had been achieved. It had been a while since I’d last looked at my figures. I had episode 200 to kick out the door, and some research to do for a new project. It wasn’t that long of a break, but just long enough to mean I had to read my journal to figure out where I was, and what I should do next. Once I knew what was what, I realized that what I had planned to do was pointless and useless, at least compared to the shiny new idea in my head.
Continue reading They’ve seen the light, they just need more practice.
I’m phrasing it as though they are looking at a light, because that’s what I’m doing—experimenting with implementing vision in an artificial life system.
There’s a factoid floating around that evolution cannot explain the eye. It’s based on a phrase written by Darwin. He had said that it is difficult to believe that something as complicated and well-constructed as the human eye could have come about by evolution. It was a rhetorical device. In the very next paragraph, Darwin lays out how evolution could produce an eye, or set of eyes, or whatever the given creature might happen to need.
Continue reading On vision and evolution
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 22:16 — 15.1MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | | More
will robots rule the world?
If we were to create an artificial intelligence that’s more intelligent than we are, would it take over and force us into extinction? Can a machine have a mind equal to or even better than our own? Today, we take a look at such questions, along with some side trips to sharks and whales and monkeys, and rocks and chocolate. I swear the candy thing really was relevant; I just got distracted.
Continue reading Ep 200: will robots rule the world?
So, here’s the game, implemented in game.java. A certain number of cycles is chosen, between a minimum amount, 10 at the moment, and a maximum, 50. Then a coin is flipped that determines whether the light is on or off for this round. One port will, when called, set b to 1 if the light is on, and -1 if it’s off. So far so good. This is enough for the figures to have the simplest eye imaginable. They can detect whether or not the light is on, something that even single cells are capable of. Next, we attempt to get them to react to whether or not the light is on, again, something that some of the simplest life forms can do.
Continue reading Damn local minima!
Their first task was easy. Can the digital organisms I wrote, called “figures,” learn to call a good command and avoid a bad one?
My first job was easy. It only took 6 lines of code. Each digital creature, each “figure,” has a certain amount of energy.
Figure.energy = 12,168;
Each time a figure has a turn, (when they execute one command,) the energy level drops.
When a figure is out of energy, it dies. It is completely deleted from the system, leaving behind it’s children, if it had any.
If (figure.energy < = 0)
Death.kill(figure) [scary music!]
Continue reading Their first task was easy
It’s about time I tried using my artificial life as an artificial intelligence. It’s been the goal since day one. Before I could do that, I had to come up with the algorithm in the first place, and then make sure that the figures could actually evolve. To evolve, they need to change, and some of those changes should help them survive and reproduce, passing on their successful tricks to their offspring.
Continue reading It’s about time I tried using my artificial life as an artificial intelligence
I’m sitting on the edge of a binary ocean, casting hyperdimensional nets into the infinite waters of possible programs. My digital creatures, which I call “figures,” will run on my computer for hours, until I finally catch something.
Continue reading It’s like fishing.