It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electronic Evolution: Research Show Robots Forming Human-like Societies

page: 6
50
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


didnt darwin invent evolution to fit his hypothesis?

which shows that yes... your definition is much too strict.

everything comes from something.

prove me wrong ill buy you lunch


[edit on 5/20/2009 by mahtoosacks]


I don't think this has anything to do with what I said. If it does, please elaborate.




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


the act of the programmers meshing it together is more or less the breeding cycle.

they programmers didnt rewrite their code. just reran the simulation with updated (note evolved) thinking.

everything was learned on the little robots' own.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Now if my brain mutates and makes me think of things nobody ever thought of and I pass that trait on to my offspring, that's evolution of the Darwinian kind.


everything comes from something. you dont spontaneously do anything evolution wise. its an inescapable linear progression

much like art

[edit on 5/20/2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


You said :
Because that is not evolution.

Perhaps in this case, but on a related note, here's where it get's a little scary -


Rat-brain robot created

Hybrid machines

The blob of nerves forming the brain of the robot was taken from the neural cortex in a rat foetus and then treated to dissolve the connections between individual neurons.

Sensory input from the sonar on the robot is piped to the blob of cells to help them form new connections that will aid the machine as it navigates around its pen.

Source : NowPublic.com

Here's a clip of the thing in action ... it's errie ...




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks

Now if my brain mutates and makes me think of things nobody ever thought of and I pass that trait on to my offspring, that's evolution of the Darwinian kind.


everything comes from something. you dont spontaneously do anything evolution wise. its an inescapable linear progression

much like art

[edit on 5/20/2009 by mahtoosacks]


The new thoughts has nothing to do with it if that's what confused you. It might help in natural selection. The brain mutation being passed on is the only relevant part, and that mutation takes place in the DNA according to evolution.

I don't disagree with the rest of what you said or that something comes from nothing. I don't know where you got that idea.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


still makes sense to me but we might be on same page.

leaving work for the day
but i like you.

i still think its evolution of a very crude and basic platform, but i can see why we differ

rock on man friends

come down to south of atl and well hang out



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


the act of the programmers meshing it together is more or less the breeding cycle.

they programmers didnt rewrite their code. just reran the simulation with updated (note evolved) thinking.

everything was learned on the little robots' own.


Please reread the original article. programmers meshing it together is NOT more or less the breeding cycle.

Neiither the programmer or the robot updated the code. The programmer meshed the code together of the ones that produced desirable results. By the very nature of doing that you are going to limit the number of times bad choices are availabe in the code. It is not evolution, its just a really slow way to eliminate bad choices from the code.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


still makes sense to me but we might be on same page.

leaving work for the day
but i like you.

i still think its evolution of a very crude and basic platform, but i can see why we differ

rock on man friends

come down to south of atl and well hang out


Thanks! Have a great rest of your day.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Please reread the original article. programmers meshing it together is NOT more or less the breeding cycle.

Neiither the programmer or the robot updated the code. The programmer meshed the code together of the ones that produced desirable results. By the very nature of doing that you are going to limit the number of times bad choices are availabe in the code. It is not evolution, its just a really slow way to eliminate bad choices from the code.


Did they mesh the code or just the data? Why would the code be different in the species that lived than the ones who died? I've been under the impression they just meshed the learned data. Generally in programming if there is a mutation (like a typo) in programming, it generally results in some error.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


Excellent point. They use the term code or programming in the article which I agree is wrong, but I was trying to stay true to the articles wording because you know how anal some people around here get.


My understanding is that the populated each robot with random steps (data), in my mind like you would program a CNC machine to take steps to make a part or a robot to take a certain path. So each robot had random steps and they saved/meshed the step choices out of the desirable robots to get the next version and so on and so on. Which by its nature lower the likelihood of taking negative steps.

What is your take on the Messiah robots?

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

What is your take on the Messiah robots?

[edit on 5/20/2009 by justsomeboreddude]


I think they're probably like a computer chess program. The computer actually makes some dumb moves in memory, but then determines it's a losing scenario and weeds it out. In the robots situation the weeding out is being done by humans.

I actually find the rat neurons that can pilot a flight simulator a lot more interesting. Why do a few rat neurons care if they crash a simulated airplane? Sorry, no intention of derailing this thread.

[edit on 20-5-2009 by theyreadmymind]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by theyreadmymind
 


My understanding is they just meshed (bred) the data. The data, in this case, being neural-linkage weights. The network they used had 10 input neurons, each connecting to 3 output neurons. So a total of 30 connection weights to encode behaviour patterns.

Imagine what could happen if they also encoded neural linkage topology as data, perhaps even allow for more complex multi-layer networks!



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
... really??... we're here talking about the prospect of independently acting machines...

... and someone wandered in here and filthed the conversation up with a non-sensible argument about creationism?


Did the bible thumpers think we needed another pointless argument about your "imaginary friend in the sky making you out of mud (or someone's disused rib)" badly enough to turn a perfectly good technology article into yet another nauseating "god did it" thread?



Bring your creationism arguments somewhere else please, this WAS a thread about ROBOTICS.

And it USED TO BE interesting.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Fascinating stuff, and I do think it reflects what happens in nature.
Perhaps the "survival of the fittest" term needs to be replaced with "survival of the most cooperative."

Survival of the fittest or natural selection if you like, happens because it can, of course it keeps the gene pool strong. However evolution doesn't care about the individual it cares about the species as a whole.

I think this experiment does suggest this. Cooperation amongst unicellular organisms naturally would seem to be the precursor to multicellular organisms.

I'm a anti religious spiritualists, in my opinion I find the process of evolution far more profound than any creation story, they are myths after all, wisdom in disguise, hidden meanings but not literal facts.




[edit on 20-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Amazing if true, confirmation that abstract reality is not only a creator of our universe but also the very abstract ability of the mind to even be able to evolve to use abstract thoughts (i.e. to be conscious of your environment) in the first place.

So overal very, very, interesting. Confirmation that there is at least a God but perhaps not necessarily the one many have been taught-indoctrinated into accepting-brainwashing.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   

chosen as "successful", and their neural programming was combined to produce the next generation


I am up to page3 of thread now, and so far no one has raised the question "combined by whom?". Who did the combining?? combining is the most important part IMO, but I don't think the robots did it...

Evolution (in the traditional evolution-of-the-species sense) Requires the addition of new BENEFICIAL information. No computer code has ever, EVER added NEW ADDITIONAL BENEFICIAL information to itself. Sure it can copy entire library's of information IF programmed to do so, and it can readjust its perimeters WITHIN the defined code. AI has never evolved. It does what it is programmed to do, flawlessly, first time, every time. As one persons's signature goes: "mistaking knowledge for intelligence is like mistaking a cup of milk for a cow".

Similarly, new additional beneficial information has never been observed being added to the DNA/RNA chain of any species. The day this happens, Evolutionists will finally be able to tell creationists __________ ______. __ _______ ______ ___.

TY OP,



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I don't understand. Without outside interference, what is the motive behind the "evil" robots?

Honestly, this really is a blow to my philosophical way of thinking and makes me rather rethink the entire project and - should humans have evoled the same way - the basis of human evolution in general.

Most animals are not known to lead their own kind into danger unless there is a greater need to do so. Humans are the biggest culprit of this.

Therefore I have to ask the simple question: if there was no benefit for the robots leading the others to danger, then why did it do it?



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
I am up to page3 of thread now, and so far no one has raised the question "combined by whom?". Who did the combining?? combining is the most important part IMO, but I don't think the robots did it...

Ah, that is on page 4...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically, what they did was represent the "control values" of the neural-net for each robot as a sequence of data. Then, they'd take the top-performing percentage of robots, and "breed" their data sequences, with sexual cross-over and mutation factors. That would result in the "DNA" for a new generation of individuals. There was no human-decided factors; it was a determinable (but somewhat random) process.

Those data sequences determined how the neurons in the robot's "brain" were connected and influenced each other, which determined it's behaviour.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Here is an interesting report with more detail about this experiment. I can't remember exactly which point, but I think there was something about randomly flipping a bit in memory registers of some percentage of the offspring. I think that's probably why these oddities showed up. I'd sure like to believe the martyrs were doing it for the betterment of robot-kind, but I think the author of the OP's article probably just exaggerated a little too much. Handle-bar moustache.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   


Isn't it funny how programmers understand these things, but it's always people who aren't programmers and don't understand what it means to program are the ones who push things like this?

This is I think, just stereotyping programmers. You don't need to be a non-programmer in order to understand and think about these things - it is irrelevant whether you are familiar with programming or not. Programmers push these things as well - I should know.




The SYMBRION project is trying to see if robots in swarms could evolve new behaviors, and become self-healing and self-protecting. Such robots could reprogram themselves without the need for direct supervision by human beings.

This is still far from any proof, they are *trying* to make something that *could* do something, but currently they have no idea what will come out. I still think these people should spend more time scripting, less time making shiny moving cubicles - it up to them, but using computers to experiment produces results with far better precision and speed (a fact).




There's something called adaptive software take voice recognition for example softwares where you speak and it types a word doc

Again, I can confirm this is NOT adaptive software. I have worked with OCR technology and believe me there is no evolution into that whatsoever, nor is there in voice recognition.




nah man sorry but you are wrong on this. the ai adapts to its surroundings. just like in halo. those creatures running around are "thinking" and the code updates itself.

That is not true. All games use well known and old AI algorithms so I won't spend time explaining it here when many articles exist for that. People, games are not smart - they just use predefined set of instructions and an info database.




Consciousness creates and understands logic, there is no logic(programming) which can create consciousness.

That is also what I believe at the moment.


Someone also mentioned bio-robots. I think this is possible and is being researched as we speak - in both ways, controlling the brain through AI and controlling the AI through brain. Note that currently it is possible to control parts of nervous system (not brain) by stimulating certain nerve branches with electricity.

As a conclusion of mine about the OP and comments, I say it would be best to research game AI and chat AI articles on google if your mind is tickling. The article in comment above me is interesting as well - you will be surprised how simple these things are at the moment and how little advancement we have made in last 10 years.
Basically, most work related to AI is done to optimize it so it becomes usable in common house robots, or medical/police robots.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by SassyCat]



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join