Slashdot Mirror


Computer Makes Robot Offspring

Flarenet writes: "Canoe.ca is reporting about a story where: 'A computer programmed to follow the rules of evolution has for the first time designed and manufactured simple robots with minimal help from people.'" This is a nicely satisfying result of the research (mentioned in an earlier Slashdot story) by Jordan Pollack and Hod Lipson of Brandeis University.

29 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Software to do the simulation yourself by decaym · · Score: 4

    Make sure you download the simulation software at http://www.demo.cs.brandeis. edu/pr/golem/download.html. It only runs under Windows, but it's curious to watch the process running. I've got it running on a couple of computers overnight. It will be interesting to see what is crawling around at the office tomorrow morning.

    --
    World Beach List, my latest project.
    1. Re:Software to do the simulation yourself by stinky+monkey · · Score: 4

      Great.. now I've got a cow cracking keys, a Seti (isn't that bigfoot?) dish calling aliens to my house, and a screensaver that receives robots. No wonder all this code takes forever to compile...

      --
      ~Bout Time for another tea party.®~
  2. This is exactly what I was talking about!!! by xonix7 · · Score: 3

    I predicted this!! It's not all that surprising , considering the History of the Universe. Man has always sought to live on through his inventions, and for good reason. With intelligent beings having been created by us, we can, in essence, as a race - mankind, live on. Let me explain why I said that humans have been striving for this for so long. Of course, BTW, this is just the beginning and to get "truly" smart Robots, more advanced hardware, software, and nanotechnology will all need to be incorporated. Now...why did I say that mankind has always wanted to "live on"? here's why:

    In the beginning of the Universe, there were 3 races. Humans, elves and dwarves. The three races lived in harmony for centuries. They continually sought together to find and maintain the delicate balance between the Spiritual, Magical and Physical properties of the world. But the humans grew weary of their lifespans. The typical human lifespan was 60 years. The typical Dwarven lifespan was 300, and the typical Elven lifespan was 500. The humans deemed this unfair. Soon a new religion swept the land, mainly attracting humans: Science. They propogated physical properties while neglecting their spiritual and magical properties. Soon they developed powerful new weapons such as crossbows, gunpowder, and chemical explosives. While Elven magic was still prevalent, the Dwarves had no protection against the new human weapons, but to replicate them, for they too were good at Physical and Mechanical engineering. But the humans had a lot more practice and developing such weapons, had more confidenence and drive, and outnumbered both Dwarves and Elves. So the Dwarves tried to make peace with the humans and help them - but the humans refused the help and destroyed the Dwarves completely. The Elven wizards killed thousands of humans, but only 1 in 10000 was an Elf wizard. 3/10 humans were capable bowmen, gunmen, or explosive users. So, in vast battles, 3 000 000 gunmen, crossbowmen and explosive users faced 10 000 wizards and 300 000 pike/sword/longbow-men.

    The Elves put up a fight, but after a while, were destroyed. There were centuries of fantastic battles: Magic vs Science, the Lightning of Power vs the Destruction of Science, and the human factories and Elven towers were destroyed around them. In the end , few humans remained, but no Elves at all remained. The humans had lost their science and knowledge, and the Elves had lost their very species. Centuries later, we are where we are today.

    I'm sorry if this displeases Christian fanatics who disagree with the truth - the truth of the Universe as I've outlined it here, but....well, too bad.

    Just my $0.02

    --
    Everything is but a number spoken by itself.
  3. Reproduction by MyopicProwls · · Score: 4
    This is proof that if we geeks can't find any geek women (hell, ANY women) to breed with us, then we'll build some that will.

    Ha ha ha! We're unstoppable!

    MyopicProwls

    --

    MyopicProwls
    My homepage

  4. We need a new moderation category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    +1 Fscking Confusing

  5. How does a robot discipline it's offspring? by rho · · Score: 4

    "Go to your point of origin and execute an infinite loop for 10 billion ticks! No more hydraulic fluid! Wipe that smirk off your face, or I'll impact it off for you!"

    --
    Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    1. re: How does a robot discipline it's offspring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      by installing windows on it?

  6. Interesting but.. by Jonathan · · Score: 4

    Like all such simulations of evolution, the program can't really create something novel that the programmer hadn't already thought of -- just combinations of preprogrammed parts. What makes biological evolution interesting and powerful is that new parts arise without a pre-conceived design.

    1. Re:Interesting but.. by baka_boy · · Score: 4
      Are you suggesting that organic life didn't begin with a few "preprogrammed parts?" Simple protein strands weren't created by living organisms, but were necessary to their existence. Hell, go an order of magnitude further down in scale, and you have the basic chemical elements -- there are "parts" that any complex system breaks down to.

      Remember fractals? How 'bout "chaos theory?" Basically, they both relate to what is now called complexity theory, which is basically showing some striking similarities in the organization of complex systems at all levels. It doesn't matter if you look at the blood molecules in the bird's wing, the air vortices it creates around it as it flies, or the storm clouds that are seeded into existence as it passes -- you see organizational structures in common between all three.

      Similarly, while electronic simulation of a primative form of evolution may not give us sentient computers or full-blown artifical life, it certainly can serve as an aid to harnessing some portion of that cycle of change and trial that has created such innovative natural structures in our world. Plus, it just migh illustrate factors in natural evolution that we would have overlooked otherwise.

    2. Re:Interesting but.. by Mathonwy · · Score: 3

      Like all such simulations of evolution, the program can't really create something novel that the programmer hadn't already thought of -- just combinations of preprogrammed parts. What makes biological evolution interesting and powerful is that new parts arise without a pre-conceived design.

      Not entirely true. Having written genetic programs myself, I can definatly attest that they are quite adept at comming up with things you havn't thought of. Here's an example: (true story!) I was writing a program to generate algorithms to solve the santa fe trail problem. (You can find details of the problem if you do a web search, it was first described by John Koza, I believe) I was running it, and suddenly it started generating programs that were ungodly good at solving the problem. How good is ungodly good, you ask? Well, the scale went from 1 to 80. These were scoring somewhere around 44497 or so. Pretty darn good. So good that obviously something was wrong. Well, after investigating further, I realized that I had a minor bug in my program where the ants [the little algorithms it was generating] could manage to escape the memory bounds I'd set, if they did just the right thing while they were being tested. And after they got out, they would be wandering around in program memory, changing things. Well, guess what they figured out how to change? The variable that listed their score. So even though I gave them the basic tools they could work with, they came up with an entirely unique thing to do with it, which was completely unforseen by me. (namely they figured out how to do well by modifying my program's records of their performance).

      I think this constitutes the programs finding something "novel, that the programer hasn't already thought of." It's similar to regular DNA: We understand how matter works, for the most part. All life we've found so far has been made of matter, arranged in various ways. It's just the clever things that are done with it that tend to impress us.

      So don't tell me that Genetic Programming never comes up with anything unique or unforseen. 'Cause I know better; I've seen it evolve 37331 h4x0rs!

  7. Well... by ChenKenichi · · Score: 4

    I'll be impressed when the robots submit their own stories to /. Or at least submit replies. Can they learn to troll? To flame other trolls? Will they get bored and surf to seanbaby.com or something? I mean, humans went through millions of years of evolution to reach that point so it's only logical that the robots would =).

    --

    --
    The gravitational constant of protein has changed. - Turbine
  8. Re:Something else they should work on... by askheaves · · Score: 4

    Yes, it's not slashdotted. The link isn't there, but a quick use of backspace will show you that there are 3 files in the download directory. One of them, magically, is the 1.19 version... which, by the way, doesn't seem to run under Win2K.

    --

    Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
  9. This is not reproduction by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5

    "Robot offspring" implies there is some sort of reproduction going on, and this is NOT that. [insert obligatory beatdown of the exaggerating, stupid media].

    More accurately, this is a computer using a novel technique to design a machine with minimal human programming, and hooking up the computer to a manufacturing machine.

    Having a computer actually design a working machine is impressive enough without screaming about a computer generating its "offspring". And I have to say, it's somewhat pathetic that Slashdot dfollows along. Can I suggest changing the headline to "Computer creates its own design for a machine" or even if you want to be whimsical, "First generation Deep Thought takes first step at creating 'the computer that is to come after me, a computer that even I am not worthy to calculate its operational parameters'. But that's a little long. :)


    --

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  10. Uh-Oh by drivers · · Score: 5

    Bill Joy is going to shit a brick.

  11. This isn't anything novel when... by Ruthless_Advisorette · · Score: 4
    they still say the following:

    "A computer programmed to follow the rules of evolution has for the first time designed and manufactured simple robots with minimal help from people."

    Last I checked, the birds and the bees certainly don't need ANY human help.


    And why is it newsworthy that this thing is following the rules of evolution? So it's the "rules of evolution" (which I didn't know we KNEW in the first place!!! thank you useful biology degree!) - computers will follow whatever rules we can figure out how to give them. Why is this different?

    I'll consider it newsworthy when these things actually manage to make themselves into better survivalists with NO human help. Like maybe having the "momma" determine that only her "offspring" that locomote FAST seem to escape the wrath of the bored programmers' Koosh Shooter....

  12. I'm impressed... by the gap btw. claim & reality. by TheDullBlade · · Score: 5

    I'm not entirely against the "let's do it because we can do it" spirit, but this is an indescribably lame hack.

    It would have satisfied the same basic criteria to have a bunch of snap-together motor+wheel blocks, and have the computer "evolve" the idea of snapping four of them into a little car (and I believe that the computer didn't evolve the construction method either, but just handled the design given a fixed set of parts; it might as well have been human technicians building the robots).

    The sad fact of evolutionary design techniques is that they only work for an adequately simulated environment with a formally-defined design goal. Useful, but no silver bullet; certainly not a way to improve the versatility of designs (since they only take into account what conditions and criteria you program into them).

    You can't move it out of a simulated environment (like having it build and test all models under real working conditions), or it would take as long as biological evolution, and we might as well breed our machines.

    --------

    --
    /.
  13. Run!! by Daveamadid · · Score: 3

    Isn't this the way that The Matrix and Terminator started out?!

    Tomorrow on Slashdot "The offspring robot we reported about yesterday has created 50,000 offspring robot since last night, the world is officially coming to an end."

    --

    --Dave
  14. Evolution as a resource...progress mining? by Jon_Sy · · Score: 3
    Hmm...well, computers changed the notion of natural resources, when suddenly it became possible to think outside of human minds. All we have to do is tell a computer how to think for us, and it does so merrily. Suddenly information became a resource itself, raw data had value as tangible as coal or land, because we gained the ability to refine vast amounts of it quickly.

    This is a whole new avenue...taking the process we call evolution and mapping it into technology. If we can harness that ability, and more importantly accelerate it, then haven't we suddenly gained a new resource? Computational devices gave us the power to let something else think for us, but with rigid limits...the instructions must be fixed, so really only repetitive functions can be made autonomous. But this gives us a new power...or does it?

    We still can't solve problems autonomously. The original set of instructions has to be fed to the device, and the methods for 'evolving' have to be written. To me, it looks like we've just taken a clue from nature, applied it to a computational device, and watched a faster form of problem solving take place. Genetic algorithms aren't exactly new...here's a short description, or if you like, an example of a massively distributed parallel geneticalgorithm from Carnegie Mellon University Robotics. (Also check out CMU computer science for all sorts of wild projects). For another comment on relating ecological systems to computing, see this string, from an article this week.

    Who knows what else can be found in natural systems, that we can apply to computing to gain information resources. I remember hearing that, a few decades ago, biology was the hot interest of the world's greatest thinkers (mostly trade physicists) who were looking for profound answers...wouldn't it be interesting if we could one day mine progress.

    -j

  15. Provide the aliens with fresh meat? by yerricde · · Score: 3

    until the last Elves and Dwarves had been abducted by UFO's, in a secret plot by the US government, in a deal with the aliens, to remove the Elves and Dwarves from Earth, and provide the Aliens with fresh meat.

    They could have provided the aliens with fresh meat, slash dot, source forge, and think geek without killing any elves or dwarves.


    <O
    ( \
    XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  16. This is not even that impressive. by TheDullBlade · · Score: 4

    a computer using a novel technique to design a machine with minimal human programming,

    Actually, it almost certainly took more human effort to do the programming than it would have to just design the damned robots. I wouldn't call it "minimal" human programming by any means.

    I really don't think this is all that impressive. Similar simulations have been running for years, the only new thing these guys did was hook it up to a manufacturing machine.

    --------

    --
    /.
  17. Re:What is the Matrix? by )-(eat · · Score: 3
    The current limitations of paramaters, code, etc prevent anything like that, but 2 letters end all problems to this and make science fiction like The Terminator and The Matrix science reality, and those letters are... (drumroll)

    AI

    Even what AI stands for explains it - Artificial Intelligence - once we make a self aware computer, all bets are off and if it lears quickly enough that we are no more than an annoyance to it, by the time we realize what we have done it has already taken over robot factories and started rolling out the T-1000s

    This may sound very pessimistic and impossible, but with our current exponential rate of technological advances, nearly anything is possible - just think about it, put yourself in an imaginary time machine, and go back several centuries...

    1200-1300 - dark ages - try to explain renaissance and be branded a heretic

    1500 try to explain enlightenment and natural law and be branded a heretic

    1700 try to explain industrial revolution and have farmers laugh at you

    1900 try to explain world as we know it in 2000 - get thrown in asylum

    2000 try to explain problems and possibilities of future - 2 options, get listened to, or get modded down....

    --
    When the world ends, we'll be burnin' one
    -- Dave Matthews Band
  18. Evolutionary programming is disturbing by Keelor · · Score: 5
    As a friend of mine once showed me with a buggy program he wrote, you have to be careful how you define "success" in evolutionary programming. He wrote an ant simulator that kept a score for how well the ant did at foraging for food. Only thing was, the program had a slight bug, so at the end of the evolutionary phase, the "best" ant was the one that had figured out how to edit it's score directly. The problem was that the real goal was to increase the score, not find food.

    In a more real world example, evolutionary mining robots would have two ways to reach the defined objective of keeping reported numbers high: learning how to mine really well, or killing the humans and sending in fake reports themselves.

    BTW, a computer making robot offspring because it was told to design them isn't nearly as disturbing as the inevitable computer making robot offspring on it's own accord.

    ~=Keelor

  19. Re:Why would machines reproduce? by uebernewby · · Score: 4

    IANAB (I am not a biologist), but isn't one of the reasons why animals reproduce the fact that it feels good (for one of the available sexes, at least; have you ever seen ducks mating in a pond? I doubt the females enjoy almost getting drowned whenever three males jump them)? Probably the only way you can model a "biological" form of reproduction in a machine is by giving it some reward for it. I wonder what a bunch of bits would find pleasurable...

    will emotionless machines kill their offspring if they cease to be of value and start consuming more than they're producing?

    Apparently, lots of animals have no qualms about eating their offspring: crocodiles being one, famous, example. Still, crocodiles as a species seem to thrive no less despite this. And since most artificial life hasn't been endowed with a great emotive power anyways, why should it matter that our little robots develop this kind of behavior? I seriously doubt the parents will have moral qualms over eating their children, and I don't think the children will realise they're eaten by their parents.

    (BTW, does anybody else remember the Discovery -stuff to watch while you eat- documentary about robot bugs built out of spare walkman parts that learned how to walk around and avoid obstacles without being told how? Now *that* was cool).

    --

    News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
  20. Sexual Satisfaction by NoWhere+Man · · Score: 4

    So the robot reproduces asexually? (Or close to that). It did mention it needed a little help from humans. Won't be long before you come home late one night and find out that you have 4 new computers that all need operating systems installed on them.

    --

    "Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
  21. "natural" selection? by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4
    I feel that it is necessary to point out that this is not natural selection. Rather it is selection based on a well-defined fitness function, that is, "the objective was to travel the farthest on a flat surface."

    It is a cool thing, and amazing in many ways, but it is hype to overextend the analogy to "natural selection," in which a single fitness criteria (survival until breeding) nominally leads to development of metabolism, perception, locomotion, and self-awareness.

    Way to go with the experiment, but watch it with the grand claims.

    Bingo Foo

    ---

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  22. Riddle me this by Vassily+Overveight · · Score: 3

    Would a self-replicating machine be guilty of violating its own copyright? Wonder if it'd get sued ...

    --

    "If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine

  23. Lets remember exegesis by piecewise · · Score: 3

    Astro Teller's fictional work (dang!) "exegesis" is the story of a Unix process whose job is to gather info across the net and summarize it. Over time, it learns to form thought and English, and emails its creator.

    Over time, "Edgar" learns how to program, edit its own code, and develops a sense of purpose. However, its tied to its original goal of finding new information. Eventually, the NSA traps it in a computer and yanks out the Ethernet cord. In response, Edgar quickly changes the color values of each pixel on the monitor and gives the agent a focal point seizure (where your eyes try to refocus so quickly they basically lock up and you go nuts, basically).

    I won't give away the ending. It's an EXCELLENT book, and a quick read (it's basically 100 or so email messages).

    My point is, create AI and you create evil (ok, maybe). But, create intelligent agents and you create... less work for us humans!

    BWA HA HA HA!

    Really though, these developments are important, if not sometimes overplayed or mistook.

    Chris

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  24. Use it with Lego by RoscoHead · · Score: 3

    Done.

    See DEMO.

    --

    Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
  25. Framsticks by Animats · · Score: 3
    There's been something like this from Poland for a while, called Framsticks. It's very much like the Brandeis work; it evolves creatures consisting of sticks and joints. I've been playing with it, and so far it hasn't evolved beyond bad crawling and dragging. But try it for yourself. It's shareware; send in your $35 and the graphics get better.

    It's interesting playing with programs that evolve. After a while, you begin to realize that there seems to be an upper limit to what you can get with genetic algorithms. Roughly, it's optimization, yes; progress, no. Fairly soon you get all the things that are easy to find, but you never seem to get big improvements, because those require a set of favorable mutations to happen all at once. The odds against this are huge, so it doesn't happen. This is comparable to what biologists see; organisms vary and evolve, but within limits. Biologists assume that once in a great while there's a big change that's an improvement, but it hasn't been observed. As I once told the genetic algorithm group at Stanford, we're missing something important here, and whomever figures this one out will get a Nobel prize.

    I have no idea what the answer to that one is, but it probably involves something in a genome that works like a subroutine, macro, rule, or template, so you don't have to re-evolve an improvement to reuse it. John Koza at Stanford has genetic algorithms with subroutines, but they didn't do as much as had been hoped.

    As a pure speculation, and one that's heretical biologically, it's worth thinking about the possibility that biological evolution was Lamarkian in the era after viruses but before immune systems, and that's why there was a period during which lots of new species emerged.