2 ms·

This is interesting. I too am interested in simulations and fields like Artificial Life where we start with some basic building blocks and hope to allow somethi

This is interesting. I too am interested in simulations and fields like Artificial Life where we start with some basic building blocks and hope to allow something capable of evolution to form. My question is always "where do we start?" because, as you found out, starting with the most fundamental physics simulation we can conceive of, we are unlikely to generate much of interest for some time, if ever. But I do have a feeling that in order to get something truly novel and interesting it's going to have to "evolve" in an "environment" and the challenge will be in identifying whether a particular instance of primordial soup is on its way to developing more complex structures. I strongly believe that the importance of the multi-billion year process of evolution is seriously underestimated by the AI community and that it's pure hubris to think we can short-circuit that entirely and simply reverse engineer the brain with fancy algorithms.

goldenkey 8y ago
> But I do have a feeling that in order to get something truly novel and interesting it's going to have to "evolve" in an "environment" and the challenge will be in identifying whether a particular instance of primordial soup is on its way to developing more complex structures. I thought that way for a long time too which is why I chased the cellular automata ideas and eventually implemented many varieties. But nowadays, I think its all mostly torched by magnitudes. The closest chance we have is not relying on the magnitudes. Instead of trying to evolve a universe, or variety of entities - we need to focus on a single entity. I thought AI had a flawed premise, like you mention: attempting to develop single individual is directly antithetical to how life normally develops. None the less, my mind is changed since my automata dabblings. Single individual engineering is the only method that has the slimmest chance in hell.

goldenkey 8y ago

> But I do have a feeling that in order to get something truly novel and interesting it's going to have to "evolve" in an "environment" and the challenge will be in identifying whether a particular instance of primordial soup is on its way to developing more complex structures. I thought that way for a long time too which is why I chased the cellular automata ideas and eventually implemented many varieties. But nowadays, I think its all mostly torched by magnitudes. The closest chance we have is not relying on the magnitudes. Instead of trying to evolve a universe, or variety of entities - we need to focus on a single entity. I thought AI had a flawed premise, like you mention: attempting to develop single individual is directly antithetical to how life normally develops. None the less, my mind is changed since my automata dabblings. Single individual engineering is the only method that has the slimmest chance in hell.