Neural Networks-Equipped Robots Evolve the Ability To Deceive

pdragon04 writes "Researchers at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland have found that robots equipped with artificial neural networks and programmed to find 'food' eventually learned to conceal their visual signals from other robots to keep the food for themselves. The results are detailed in a PNAS study published today."

Comments

Mis-Leading

[ashtophoenix]

To use the term "learned" for a consequence of evolution to what seems to me to be a Genetic Algorithm seems mis-leading. So the generation that emitted less of the blue light (hence giving less visual cues) was able to score higher, and hence the genetic algorithm favored that generation (that is what GAs do). Isn't this to be expected?

Deception is not always evil.

[vertinox]

In this instance they were playing against other robots for "food".

In that regards I'm sure that is the evolutionary drive for most species in acquiring meals and keeping the next animal from taking it away from him.

Like a dog burying a bone... He's not doing it to be evil. Its just instinctive to keep his find from other animals because it helped his species survive in the past.

Re:Deception is not always evil.

[alexborges]

Intent is of no importance.

Evil deeds are evil.

Re:Deception is not always evil.

[jemtallon]

I disagree. Evil is not a factual property naturally accuring in the universe. It is not something that can be scientifically measured. It is something we humans have created and assign to the world around us. Different people and groups of people define different things and actions as evil. Sometimes those definitions are directly opposed to each other.

Since evil deeds are not inherently evil, only subjectively judged to be, any number of factors can be used to make said judgements. Contrary to what you've said, intent is a very common factor in determing what is evil and that which is said to be "not evil," or good.

For instance, the act of a human killing an animal could be seen as evil or good based solely on that human's intent. If the human killed the animal out of idle boredome, many would call that act evil. On the other hand, if that human killed the animal out of necessity to survive, many would call that good. Of course, PETA would likely call both evil. And there may be some who would call both good.

Many legal systems are built on the notion that laws exist to promote the good and/or punish evil. Many account for intent and weigh their judgements based on it. For instance, in the US, there are varying degrees of penalties for murder depending on intent. In some cases, there is no penalty as the action is considered justified, as is the case with self-defence.

Re:Define deception?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The question of what exactly constitutes deception is a fun philosophical problem but; in the context of studying animal signaling, it is generally most convenient to work with a simpler definition(in particular, trying to determine whether an animal that doesn't speak has beliefs about the world is a pile of not fun). I'd assume that the robot researchers are doing the same thing.

In that context, you essentially ignore questions of motivation, belief, and so on, and just look at the way the signal is used.

Re:Define deception?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems likely to me that the robots merely determined that increased access to food resulted from suppression of signals.

My thoughts exactly.

We would really need to see the actual study to possibly believe any of this.

Re:Define deception?

[Anonymous Coward]

The robots learned to not turn on the light when near the food. This is concealing not deceiving. To be deceiving wouldn't the robots need to learn to turn the light on when they neared the poison to bring the other robots to the poison while it hunted for the food? But all they learned was to conceal the food they found.

Re:The robots didn't learn...

[guybrush3pwood]

The AI didn't learn anything.

I think you're right. If the robots had, without reprogramming, efectively turned off their blue lights, then we could talk about "learning". Or, if the robots could reproduce based on their success on finding food, we could talk about evolution. Or we could make up new meanings for the words "learning" and "evolution" thus making the statement a correct one ;)

Re:The robots didn't learn...

[Chris Burke]

I think you're right. If the robots had, without reprogramming, efectively turned off their blue lights, then we could talk about "learning".

They reprogrammed themselves between 'generations'.

Or, if the robots could reproduce based on their success on finding food, we could talk about evolution.

Such as choosing which versions of the robot to use in the next 'generation' based on their score in the current generation, and randomly combining parts of those best solutions to create new robots for the next generation, sounds pretty close doesn't it?

Re:Define deception?

[capologist]

Yes, but not flashing the light near food seems like a simple matter of discretion, not deception.

I'm not constantly broadcasting my location on Twitter like some people do. Am I being deceptive?

Re:Define deception?

[holmstar]

My dog knows that he can get away with doing things that he isn't supposed to do if I'm not looking. Sometimes I'll notice that he is staring at me from across the room... usually that means that he is up to something, and will try to do whatever it is if I look away for long enough. Sneaky little bastard.