Slashdot Mirror
Self-Organizing Circuit Reinvents Radio
PortWineBoy writes "An evolutionary computer program that controls circuits connected to transistors is told to 'breed' an oscillator. Instead, it breeds a radio receiver which picks up oscillation produced by a nearby computer to achieve the desired result. It seems interesting to me but does it have any implications or applications? Any thoughts on how something like this could be used elsewhere?"
99.999% of the electronics devices I own and used seem to have fixed purposes and fixed designs. Perhaps this technology will find itself interfacing with organics/nerves in the future. Maybe it's distant circuit-child will do better than poking electrodes around on a brain saying to the patient "Are you still there?" The articles about human-electronic-vision seem to talk a lot about plugs going into heads.
Maybe this tech, combined with fixed technological components, will find itself into the human/electronic interface.
...evolution always cheats, though no doubt there are numerous experiments where that doesn't happen and no one think it's special...
That's because evolution knows no rules. Therefore, evolution does not cheat. It's sole task is to follow the path of least resistance.
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
The article is sensationalist and irresponsible, as it talks of how the genetic algorithm "surprised the scientists", and how nobody knows how the circuit "figured out" one trace could act as an antenna.
The problem is that the non-tech-savvy of the world will read this and actually be made to believe these are thinking machines which are truly learning on their own. It conjures up images of a Matrix future.
I'm quite sure the scientists didn't find the results all that stunning. They ran random mutations and "evolved" an oscillator from the interconnections of 10 transistors. The algorithm of course *failed* to generate an oscillator, and instead cheated by picking up a nearby radiowave.
Nothing in the circuit "figured out" about antennas and radio waves - it was just random luck, much as any result in such an experiment is.
Some might argue with calling the cheating oscillator a failure. I disagree - I think it's a wonderful example of how far AI research has to go yet. What they wanted was an oscillator, presumably one that would work (were this a circuit designing machine in the real world) elsewhere outside the lab. The algorithm was too dumb to realize it's design won't be portable past the lab table.
I really don't think random mutation with selection is going to be the answer, if there's even an answer to be had. Computers are for automating, humans using them as tools are for innovating.
11*43+456^2
That's the neat part, though. The whole idea that evolution has a "goal" is wrong. The goal is to do what it takes to get more resources that the other things so you can make more of yourself. Anything to reach that goal is fair. That's what makes these algorithms so damn cool -- they work just like life. Do exactly what it takes to make it to the next level. The "problem" with the experiment was that there were ways to have the same end result that the researchers where testing for -- not looking for. The flaw is not the algorithms but the testing method.
It was a genetic algorithm that tried different combinations and evaluated each of them to see how much of an oscillation each combination produced.
The radio receiver combination simply gave a bigger oscillation than the other combinations, so it was selected as the best circuit.
The only way it is surprising is because there was an extra input that they had not considered...but now that the input is known it is quite simple to explain the output. No astounding AI here.
It was given a problem (give us an oscillating pattern) and it solved it in a way the programmers had not thought of. Wow.
Or more likely a way that they where taught not to think of because it wastes so much resources.
Thinking 'outside the box' is fine and all, until you realize that outside the box tends ot be a bit, err, messy at times.
Besides history has shown that when the current methodologies are no longer sufficient to solve a given problem, that somebody will come along sooner or later and do something that the current school of thought teaches against in order to solve the problem.
Now hopefully what one of the true applications of techniques like this is, will be to help ensure that such solutions come about sooner rather then later. But as it is this is hardly an adequate way to go about solving any problem, tried and true methods are tried and true for a reason. They work.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The whole problem is the notion of "simple and straight-forward". In every case evolved systems seem to find their own solutions that seem to be complicated (from our point of view and rules), but if you look at it from a how-many-things-have-to-evolve point of view, their solutions are far simpler.
the RIAA would not have any idea as to how it was done, because neither will the researcher.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Its a symbiote.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I've read this story before, and it fills me with a mixture of wonder and sadness. I'm amazed at how clever evolutionary processes can turn out to be; I'm disappointed by the fact that they often seem to be cleverer than we humans can figure out.
If the workings of a simple tone-differentiating circuit are beyond human understanding, what hope do we have of gaining a deep understanding of the human brain, the most complex machine in the universe? It makes me wonder if perhaps the secrets of our intelligence are too complex for that intelligence to grasp.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
The subject of fitness in the article reminds me of a book called "Starfish" by Peter Watts. (I recommend it highly in my own review of it, BTW).
In it, a type of biological computer has been created, and does stuff integral to the plot. In one sidenote I recall, someone brings up the fact that you don't really know why these types of computers do something, just that they do it. The person talks about some event in a subway, where the system was supposed to run the ventilation fans when trains arrived. It worked, so everyone was happy... until some vandals smashed a clock that was visible to the system through a security camera. The fans weren't being run by a schedule, or by a camera detecting the train, it was being run by the camera seeing the pattern on the clock. So then the people on the train suffocate.
I don't think I would ever feel comfortable with one of these types of computers, unless it was so highly evolved as to be able to tell someone what it was doing and why.
Suggesting that the "sole task" of evolution is to follow the path of least resistance is misleading. Entities in an evolutionary system are trying to survive long enough to reproduce. I find it difficult to make a serious, detailed connection between this goal and taking the path of least resistance.
...evolution does not cheat, It's sole task...). This only makes the theories commonly associated with evolution harder to understand.
We should probably try to avoid 'humanizing' evolution (...evollution knows...,
-Paul Komarek
Interesting? The mods must be smoking crack.
Since when has it been deduced that floods and thunderstorms are recent events?
The topsoil here in Northwest Ohio has a large percentage of sand in it. One might imagine that it is such because it was under water for a substantial period, when things were probably warmer than right now.
In the antithesis of this, this area was also carved flat by glaciers.
And yet, even in light of these enviromental twitches, I'm somehow able to write this right now.
Obviously, if a species ceases to evolve, there is a chance that unexpected external influences will cause its demise.
Obviously, if a species continues to evolve, there is a chance that unexpected external influences will cause it to grow resistant.
The earth is still here, changing, evolving, and generally putting up with its varied inhabitants.
Having now killed the basis of your argument, I'll move on to character assasination:
Did you return your copy of Windows when it stopped working for minor (but unexpected) influences?
No?
Weak. Try again.
Kid-proof tablet..