AI Allowed to Create Their Own Culture

nomoreself writes "New Scientist reports that five European research institutes are building a virtual world with about 1000 virtual (AI) citizens, in order to observe the society these artificial agents create for themselves over the course of three years. From the article: "Each agent will be capable of various simple tasks, like moving around and building simple structures, but will also have the ability to communicate and cooperate with its cohabitants. Through simple interaction, the researchers hope to watch these characters create their very own society from scratch... [further], by pointing to objects and using randomly generated "words", characters should be able to conjure up their very own language and communicate with others inside their world." One of the researchers involved thinks the dwellers of this artificial world may even develop ritualistic practices."

Comments

The test

[mabu]

The test of the realism of the sim's AI would likely involve how long it takes for one of the sims to seize power and exploit the rest.

Err

[rbarreira]

Nevertheless, the researchers behind NEW-TIES hope to have seen some spectacular results by the time the project comes to an end in 2007. "It's incredibly ambitious, and it may be that, at the end of 3 years, we say we need at least another 30," Gilbert admits. "But it's worth a try."

Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long. Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).

Re:Err

[node 3]

Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long.

You should put some thought into your words before saying, "Err. Idiots". They're not talking about running the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years. What they want is for the project (not necessarily the simulation) to last 30 years (and beyond), and it's pretty idiotic to believe they'd learn all there is to learn in just 3 years.

30 years certainly seems like a long time, but on the subject of AI and alife, there's a *lot* yet to study. This 3 year simulation will answer just a handful of questions, and raise many more, leading to another simulation, and with the newer, faster hardware, and more capable software, they'll answer some of the new questions, raising yet more, and so on.

Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).

Mapping the human genome (you've already noted this difference) is mere bookkeeping. It's raw data. Faster computers and newer methods sped up the project so that it was finished, it sometimes seems, before it even began. But that's just data, it's still going to take a *very* long time to really understand the data.

Take a simulation system far, far, far simpler than AI and alife--chess. Even after thousands(?) of years of study, and decades of computers aided study, we still have yet to fully explore that system--there's still work to be done, and will be, perhaps, forever. What makes you think AI and alife, which is far more complex than chess, will be so much easier that there won't be enough work to last even a mere 30 years?

As for Kurzweil's essay. He is making the case that we'll understand the brain in the same way a beginner at chess understands chess. We'll know pretty much what each part does, and how they work together in simple terms, but we won't have all the answers--there will *still* be work to be done.

Erm, Idiots indeed!

Re:Err

[PakProtector]

Yes. What we need now is to map the 'Proteome,' or rather, to create a dictionary of the many, many different proteins that the human body uses -- what they do, what they're made of, how they're folded, how they interact.

That's a much, much more difficult thing than simply 'mapping' the genome.

Culture is for Bacteria.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'll say it again.

Culture is for bacteria.

There! That just feels better, to get off my chest. And by the way - there is no such thing as AI. Combining an infinite series of light-switches will never produce conciousness. Eliza is a game that can fool you, but it could never fool itself.

Re:Culture is for Bacteria.

[rbarreira]

Combining an infinite series of light-switches will never produce conciousness.

I would like to see your proof of this. Because, combining a finite series of neurons apparently produces conciousness in humans. Have you or anyone else proved that neurons are more powerful than "light switches"?

By the way, we humans fool ourselves all the time...

Re:Culture is for Bacteria.

[bluelip]

>>I would like to see your proof of this. Because, combining a finite series of neurons apparently produces conciousness in humans. Have you or anyone else proved that neurons are more powerful than "light switches"?

When was the last time a light switch turned itself off?

Re:Call me skeptical, but...

[Bastian]

I'd suggest that humans really aren't so diverse that the cultures you'd get from different populations can be wildly different - because they aren't.

Every human culture I know of is only superficially different from every other. Most of the differences I see that aren't of the "different clothing" type come from different circumstances rather than different motivations.

Re:You don't need to worry

[StrawberryFrog]

Assuming it's possible for strong AI to exist at all, (and again, I have grave doubts)

The question is: is it possible in principle to construct, using only ordinary matter and energy, a thing that is intelligent in the same way that a human being is?

Logically, the answer can only be yes - consider exhibit A, a human being, which is made only of matter and energy.

What is your grave doubt?