4 ms·

This is quibbling semantics. I bet there are software simulations for amoeba behavior indistinguishable from the real thing. It's placing an inordinate degree o

by mbleigh 12y ago

This is quibbling semantics. I bet there are software simulations for amoeba behavior indistinguishable from the real thing. It's placing an inordinate degree of importance on physical reality. Is a perfect simulation different from the real thing? That is a fundamental philosophical question that can't simply be assumed to be no.

bejuizb123 12y ago
The reason why they are indistinguishable stems from our ignorance to learn about a deeper abstraction. We cannot simulate further than what we already know.
- nl 12y ago
  What does that mean? We can tell when our simulations behaviour doesn't match the goal. But when it does, then what? You seem to imply there is some (actual, literal) magic we are missing.
  - bejuizb123 12y ago
    Not entirely. I am simply stating that, our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand. That being said, it doesn't imply we have a perfect understanding of the Amoeba down to the last particle of it. (since we absolutely have no idea what it is).
    - nl 12y ago
      our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. When we build bad simulations, then we can distinguishable them fine. Then we understand more, and do better, and then they become indistinguishable. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand. That's not entirely true. We simulate vision systems using RNNs, and we don't entirely understand how they learn.
      - bejuizb123 12y ago
        Yes, agree with your point on how they become indistinguishable. And, w.r.t RNNs, yes, probably we don't understand how they learn, but has that aided to process of how visual perception actually happens?
heroic 12y ago
Lets see it this way, does the amoeba simulation ever begin to show signs of evolving? Even if given a millenia? If no, then it's not intelligence, call it video playback if you will.
- waps 12y ago
  I believe this is the most advanced artificial lifeform that is intended to be a full simulation of the real thing : http://www.openworm.org/ http://www.openworm.org/ ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI ) Yes, it evolves. Well, in theory : running time is nowhere near what would be necessary at the moment. Note that non-evolving versions would be extremely valuable as well. Evolution happens, but individuals don't. So if you want, say, medical advances, evolution is probably one of the first things you'd throw out. But if you are generally looking for artificial intelligence that evolves, there's tons and tons of examples. The problem here is that people aren't usually all that comfortable with real running evolution during "production". People want standard, reliable solutions that perform every time. The way this is done is to "freeze" the algorithm's evolution before actually using it (or even, as Geoffrey Hinton pointed out, first train an algorithm on the actual problem, then train a second algorithm to simply exactly imitate the first's behavior, which has much better results. Or even train a second one using a non-evolving algorithm like decision trees, which I'm told is often done in finance).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- natch 12y ago
  The author is simply ignorant. This kind of evolution of simulated amoeba-like organisms was done over 20 years ago with Tierra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)

by mbleigh 12y ago

bejuizb123 12y ago

The reason why they are indistinguishable stems from our ignorance to learn about a deeper abstraction. We cannot simulate further than what we already know.

nl 12y ago
What does that mean? We can tell when our simulations behaviour doesn't match the goal. But when it does, then what? You seem to imply there is some (actual, literal) magic we are missing.
- bejuizb123 12y ago
  Not entirely. I am simply stating that, our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand. That being said, it doesn't imply we have a perfect understanding of the Amoeba down to the last particle of it. (since we absolutely have no idea what it is).
  - nl 12y ago
    our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. When we build bad simulations, then we can distinguishable them fine. Then we understand more, and do better, and then they become indistinguishable. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand. That's not entirely true. We simulate vision systems using RNNs, and we don't entirely understand how they learn.
    - bejuizb123 12y ago
      Yes, agree with your point on how they become indistinguishable. And, w.r.t RNNs, yes, probably we don't understand how they learn, but has that aided to process of how visual perception actually happens?

heroic 12y ago

Lets see it this way, does the amoeba simulation ever begin to show signs of evolving? Even if given a millenia? If no, then it's not intelligence, call it video playback if you will.

waps 12y ago
I believe this is the most advanced artificial lifeform that is intended to be a full simulation of the real thing : http://www.openworm.org/ http://www.openworm.org/ ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI ) Yes, it evolves. Well, in theory : running time is nowhere near what would be necessary at the moment. Note that non-evolving versions would be extremely valuable as well. Evolution happens, but individuals don't. So if you want, say, medical advances, evolution is probably one of the first things you'd throw out. But if you are generally looking for artificial intelligence that evolves, there's tons and tons of examples. The problem here is that people aren't usually all that comfortable with real running evolution during "production". People want standard, reliable solutions that perform every time. The way this is done is to "freeze" the algorithm's evolution before actually using it (or even, as Geoffrey Hinton pointed out, first train an algorithm on the actual problem, then train a second algorithm to simply exactly imitate the first's behavior, which has much better results. Or even train a second one using a non-evolving algorithm like decision trees, which I'm told is often done in finance).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
natch 12y ago
The author is simply ignorant. This kind of evolution of simulated amoeba-like organisms was done over 20 years ago with Tierra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)