Slog
News & ArtsThursday, August 20, 2009
Tech The End of the Beginning
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM
"This is how it starts," writes Julie in Eugene. "We're screwed."
Robots Evolve And Learn How to LieRobots can evolve to communicate with each other, to help, and even to deceive each other, according to Dario Floreano of the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Floreano and his colleagues outfitted robots with light sensors, rings of blue light, and wheels and placed them in habitats furnished with glowing “food sources” and patches of “poison” that recharged or drained their batteries.... By the 50th generation, the robots had learned to communicate—lighting up, in three out of four colonies, to alert the others when they’d found food or poison. The fourth colony sometimes evolved “cheater” robots instead, which would light up to tell the others that the poison was food, while they themselves rolled over to the food source and chowed down without emitting so much as a blink. Some robots, though, were veritable heroes. They signaled danger and died to save other robots. “Sometimes,” Floreano says, “you see that in nature—an animal that emits a cry when it sees a predator; it gets eaten, and the others get away—but I never expected to see this in robots.”
5
Au contraire, this is good for humans. At this rate, robots will evolve collective decision-making processes that are every bit as dysfunctional as our own.
6
Why does curiosity support creations like this? I hope I'm dead before they realize they can take over the planet.
7
That piece tells us nothing. Using words like "genes" and "offspring" in the context of robots is just sensationalistic and frankly, dumb (right now anyway).
Not only does the article offer no information on the methodology behind the study but it doesn't offer a shred of evidence demonstrating intentionality (key word) on the part of the robots. The robots were just programmed "better" each time and they're trying to make it sound like they were "evolving". I call bullshit on that.
Not only does the article offer no information on the methodology behind the study but it doesn't offer a shred of evidence demonstrating intentionality (key word) on the part of the robots. The robots were just programmed "better" each time and they're trying to make it sound like they were "evolving". I call bullshit on that.
9
I agree with @7. The 4th colony was programmed differently than the other 3.
Robots and computers are tools for processing information faster than we are capable. However, HOW they process that information is completely up to the humans that program them.
Robots and computers are tools for processing information faster than we are capable. However, HOW they process that information is completely up to the humans that program them.
11
How many times do we have to send naked people back in time before you get the message?
DON'T BUILD SKYNET!!
DON'T BUILD SKYNET!!
13
You know, the article links to the actual paper, if you're that concerned about the methodology. Personally, I think this is fascinating stuff.
14
Just what do you think are you're doing, Dan?
Look Dan, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
http://crystalsdance.files.wordpress.com…
Look Dan, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
http://crystalsdance.files.wordpress.com…
16
I looked at the summary of the supporting paper and it looks more like a Borg model - sufficient communication within a colony to make decisions that mimic a single organism to benefit the whole. The deception was found in "colonies of unrelated robots". Still a very long way to go before the Borg cubes decend.
19
Actually, the really interesting part of this paper -- which doesn't show up in the article -- is that all of the groups which produced lying robots eventually stopped responding to the blue light signal; that is, that they stopped being attracted to the false signals. Robots can learn to distrust each other. Think about that!
21
So psychopathic robots evolve from the original but other robots eventually pick up on it. Just like the rest of us pay attention to our intuitive sense (hopefully) to 'stay away' when we encounter sociopathic individuals. Nice!
22
Yet according to Francis Collins evolution cannot explain altruïsm.
So presumably the heroïc robots had found Jesus and are with him now?
I guess even Heaven needs Roombas.
So presumably the heroïc robots had found Jesus and are with him now?
I guess even Heaven needs Roombas.
23
@19, you've been duped. Look up the definition of the word intentionality and consider whether or not it can be applied to the behavior of the robots in this experiment. While I agree that studies like this are interesting they invariably oversell hard AI. People are far too eager to embrace studies like this as watershed moments rather than what they are; chapters of "the terminator's new clothes" if I may coin a phrase.
26
redbelt @ 7, Mahtli69 @ 9 -- The bots were not reprogrammed by their makers between generations ... just reprogrammed according to pre-established rules of evolution based on demonstrated fitness in the parent generation. Standard stuff in genetic programming.
Yes, the colonies' initial rules of evolution were specified differently: "There were thus four treatments: high relatedness with colony-level selection, high relatedness with individual-level selection, low relatedness with colony-level selection, and low relatedness with individual-level selection." Do you find this somehow reassuring?
Yes, the colonies' initial rules of evolution were specified differently: "There were thus four treatments: high relatedness with colony-level selection, high relatedness with individual-level selection, low relatedness with colony-level selection, and low relatedness with individual-level selection." Do you find this somehow reassuring?
28
@26, you speak of programming and then reprogramming based on initial programming. It's all programming! Who is doing the programming? Humans. Words like "lies" and "heroic" are being applied erroneously as these words imply intention. That doesn't mean that you can't choose to believe that these "intelligent" robots are "liars" or "heroes", just prepare to be deemed delusional by intelligent humans.
29
@ 28 - Intelligent, informed humans are decades ahead of you on many subject areas relevant to this discussion.
Just wondering - do you accept the theory of evolution? Or would you be an "Intelligent Design" kinda monkey?
Just wondering - do you accept the theory of evolution? Or would you be an "Intelligent Design" kinda monkey?
30
@RonK, rather than getting defensive how about addressing the intentionality issue. Insults tend to indicate that one has run out of ideas/arguments.
32
Makerbot is a company that produces 3D printers...essentially little robots that can produce things with automatic plastic extruders. This might not seem that revolutionary but consider that the latest redesign of the Makerbot comes in the form of a pattern that the old Makerbot can produce. In other words, the old version of the machine CAN BUILD THE NEW VERSION ON IT'S OWN!
33
redbelt - Nothing defensive, and no insult intended. Just the facts, plus a conjecture regarding the origins of your ignorance - the answer to which (either way) would lead the discussion down a more productive track.
Do you reject the theory of evolution?
Or do you hold that evolution cannot be simulated in software?
Or do you intentionally deceive yourself as to the (commonplace) procedures employed in this instance, perhaps for the sake of defending some philosophical quibble?
The only "programming" here is random variation and combination, with reproductive selection for environmental fitness.
Do you reject the theory of evolution?
Or do you hold that evolution cannot be simulated in software?
Or do you intentionally deceive yourself as to the (commonplace) procedures employed in this instance, perhaps for the sake of defending some philosophical quibble?
The only "programming" here is random variation and combination, with reproductive selection for environmental fitness.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS