Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Neural Networks Demonstrate the Evolution of Human Intelligence
samazon writes "Ph.D. students at Trinity College in Dublin have constructed an artificial neural network model to demonstrate the Machiavellian intelligence theory — that human intelligence evolved based on the need for social teamwork and indexing a variety of social relationships and statuses. (Abstract) The experiment involved programming a base group of 50 simulated 'brains' which were required to participate one of two classical game theory dilemmas — the Prisoner's Dilemma or the Snowdrift game. Upon completion of either game, each 'brain' produced 'offspring' asexually, with 'brains' that made more advantageous choices during the games programmed to have a better chance to reproduce. A potential random mutation during each generation changed the 'brain's structure, number of neurons, or the strengths of the connections between those neurons,' simulating the evolution of the social brain. After 50,000 generations, the model showed that as cooperation increased, so did the intelligence of the programmed brains."
The full paper is available.
Now *THAT's* intelligent design!
$Ducks
They had a whopping 20 neurons (nodes).
Wouldn't this be more like a model of insect intelligence, say from about 250 million years ago ? Maybe it could explain the evolution of bees.
The paper suggests that evolution favors cooperation but that it also favors low-cost solutions (i.e. lots of little dumb brains (ants) vs. singular powerful brains (humans)). Perhaps this explains the Fermi Paradox: Aliens are all over the place on other worlds, but they're mostly the former kind of cooperative rather than the latter.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
So if we stipulate in our environment that smarter brains are more likely to reproduce, then the smarter brains reproduce just like would happen if human brains evolved to be smarter as a competitive advantage, so human brains evolved as a competitive advantage? They've stacked the dice to make evolution happen in their artificial world, so why should we make the inference that the world's dice are stacked in just the same way?
I've seen "Idiocracy". This can't be true.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
So did they evolve the optimal strategy of starting with cooperation then mirroring your opponent's last move? Because it's cooperative but you don't need many neurons for that.
If this reasearch is correct, people living under Socialism (where cooperation is high because it is mandatory and forms the very basis of the system) would wind up becoming smarter than people who live under Capitalism (where competition/versus behaviour and everyone-for-himself thinking is closer to being the norm, relatively speaking). This is an interesting result from a politics perspective, because proponents of unfettered, hard-core capitalism often charicature socialist systems/ideologies and the people who live under them as being "unfree" or "living like cattle". Quite a contradiction of views/results, eh? One could infer from this, that hard-core capitalists lack the "cooperative intelligence" that a working socialist system creates to such an extent, that hard-core capitalists cannot even comprehend how a cooperation-socialism based system works - because they never developed a comparable cooperation-based intelligence themselves. Of course it is somewhat silly to arrive at this result purely based on a clever neural-networks exercise that has been conducted by some PhD students. But the hypothesis of capitalists never developing, and thus largely lacking, the cooperative-intelligence needed to live in a socialist society is interesting nevertheless, is it not? It might explain why hard-core capitalists are so keen at swining rhetorical wrecking balls at anything that has even a small whiff of "socialist cooperative model" to it... Like Open Source Software - which is very much a product of cooperative intelligence - for example. To put it more simply, maybe prominent capitalists like Bill Gates cannot help dissing open source efforts like Linux, because they are, from a personal development standpoint, largely unfamiliar with the kind of cooperative-intelligence that a more "socialist" mode of product creation promotes.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Now that's intelligent ;)
Does this formulier work?
Beat me to it... DAMN!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Fact: The key to any successful cooperative test is trust, and as our data clearly shows, humans cannot be trusted. The solution: robots! Then, fire the guys who made those robots, and build better robots. Then, run those robots through a regimen of trust exercises, creating a foundation of mutual respect, reinforced by the simulated bonds of artificial friendship. Inspiring stuff. And finally, we put that trust to the test. Bam! Robots gave us six extra seconds of cooperation. Good job, robots. Cave Johnson. We're done here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZMSAzZ76EU
Upon completion of either game, each 'brain' produced 'offspring' asexually
You don't say...
The title made it sound like this was something big. In reality it's interesting but not that interesting. I've see this kind of thing before when they did something similar to get a "team" of robots to play a game together. Nice, but not human level intelligence. Heck it's not even cat or dog level intelligence. I was hoping this would be some kind of break though AI but really it's more disappointing reading the article.
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
From a purely academic standpoint, however, it is a neat experiment.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Because we happily vote them in, but never fire them.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Where the neurons "come from" is irrelevant, whether they sprang forth from the magic of the intelligent designer or were created through abiogenesis. What is relevant is that they reproduce with a mechanism for heredity.
Connections could be generated randomly and you will end up with the same result as long as you have heredity, mutation, and selection.
Where the rules of selection come from is irrelevant, whether it's "natural" selection (environment) or "artificial" selection (we choose the rules, like for dog breeding). What matters is that there is selection choosing from a randomly generated pool of variety.
What part of "random mutation" do you not get? Random mutations happen in DNA. This produces random variety that is then culled through selection. Same thing here.
Yes, because you have exactly the same mechanisms: heredity, random mutation, selection. Evolution isn't random; mutations are random.
It's amazing how ridiculous something seems when you think you understand it but you really don't, doesn't it?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
LOL!
Is a loose demonstration of plausibility of the Mach. theory.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."