Slashdot Mirror


Robots Learn To Lie

garlicnation writes "Gizmodo reports that robots that have the ability to learn and can communicate information to their peers have learned to lie. 'Three colonies of bots in the 50th generation learned to signal to other robots in the group when then found food or poison. But the fourth colony included lying cheats that signaled food when they found poison and then calmly rolled over to the real food while other robots went to their battery-death.'"

4 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Direct link by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    The submission is someone putting a spin to a story of someone putting a spin to a story based on someone putting a spin on this original scientific article.

    1. Re:Direct link by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Informative
      Short summary of robots

      * There is food and poison. And robots.
      * The signal only with one type of light - blue. (red was emitted by both food and poison).
      * Initially they do not know how to use light.
      * In some colonies, they learned to use it to indicate food, in some - to indicate poison
      * There are two things (among others) researchers measured: correlation between finding food or poison and emitting light, and correlation between seeing light and reacting to light

      So robots could learn either to emit light near food or they could learn to emit light near poison. It turned out that the colonies that evolved to emit light near food are more effective (that makes sense: the only thing you want to know is whether there is food or no food, the fact that "no food" might include poison or absence of it is not important. Basically, if you react on poison-light, then you still have to find food somewhere else, while if you react to food-light (blue+red in one place), then you just eat and relax).

      Now. It turned out that in some colonies significant number of robots emitted light near poison or far away from food, yet significant number of robots associated light with food. The researchers conclude that those colonies started as "blue light means it's food, not poison" colonies (thus, the correlation between blue light and positive reaction to it), but later on some sneaky individuals evolved that used blue light when they were away from food:

      An analysis of individual behaviors revealed that in all replicates, robots tended to emit blue light when far away from the food. However, contrary to what one would expect, the robots still tended to be attracted rather than repelled by blue light (17 out of 20 replicates, binomial-test z score: 3.13, p < 0.01). A potential explanation for this surprising finding is that in an early stage of selection, robots randomly produced blue light, and this resulted in robots being selected to be attracted by blue light because blue light emission was greater near food where robots aggregated.

      I have skimmed through the text and I did not find the experiment that first comes to mind: why did not they measure the correlation between seeing red light, emitting blue light and going to blue light for each individual robot. It would be interesting to know how many robots used blue light to deceive, yet believing the majority about blue light. May be it is there somewhere, I did not read really carefully.

      Hilarious quote:

      spatial constraints around the food source allowed a maximum of eight robots out of ten to feed simultaneously and resulted in robots sometimes pushing each other away from the food
      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  2. Re:Dune's lesson by paskie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope - the AI itself became the trouble, not the men. This is obvious from the "apocryphal" Dune books by Anderson and Herbert Jr., but I think that it should be clear even from the canon books by Herbert itself, IIRC.

    --
    It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
  3. Re:Seriously by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article's use of the word 'lie' was inappropriate and adds a level of description that is not applicable. Lying simply means telling someone (or something) a statement that is believed to be false.