Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Teach Bees How To Play Soccer (smithsonianmag.com)

Clint Perry, a biologist who studies the evolution of cognition in insects at Queen Mary University of London, and his colleagues have released the results of a creative new experiment in which they essentially taught bumblebees how to play "bee soccer." "The insects' ability to grasp this novel task is a big score for insect intelligence, demonstrating that they're even more complex thinkers than we thought," reports Smithsonian. From the report: For the study, published in the February 23 issue of Science, researchers gave a group of bees a novel goal (literally): to move a ball about half their size into a designated target area. The idea was to present them with a task that they would never have encountered in nature. Not only did the bees succeed at this challenge -- earning them a sugary treat -- but they astonished researchers by figuring out how to meet their new goal in several different ways. Some bees succeeded at getting their ball into the goal with no demonstration at all, or by first watching the ball move on its own. But the ones that watched other bees successfully complete the game learned to play more quickly and easily. Most impressively, the insects didn't simply copy each other -- they watched their companions do it, then figured out on their own how to accomplish the task even more efficiently using their own techniques. The results show that bees can master complex, social behaviors without any prior experience -- which could be a boon in a world where they face vast ecological changes and pressures.

75 comments

  1. They did this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    FIFA 2010 World Cup.

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    1. Re:They did this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Outer Limits did it in 1964.

      ZZZZZ

    2. Re:They did this already. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear scientists,

      Once you've taught bees how to play soccer and fish how to ride a bicycle, could you teach my cat how to use the litter box?

      Thanks.

    3. Re: They did this already. by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      its too bad science is going in this direction.

    4. Re:They did this already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Scientists,

      Could you teach my human to change the litter box so that I can use it?

      Thanks,
      arglebargle_xiv's cat

  2. Can they be taught to sting specific people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon bee-terrorism will be born. Every scientific discovery has a good use and a bad use.

  3. Where are the drunkard hooligans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a game without those drunk (on mead?) hooligan bees.

    1. Re:Where are the drunkard hooligans? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The bees first have to - w/ or w/o help from these scientists - figure out how to convert honey into beer

  4. "Research Projects" by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, my high school career councilor has a lot to answer for. Had I known I could be teaching bees how to play soccer, I'd have actually focused on my grades...or indeed, shown up.

    But no, he was always like, "Stop drinking that" or "why are you at my house at 2am?" or perhaps most amusingly, "You can't be here, I have a restraining order".

    He was a bit of a kidder.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:"Research Projects" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a good bloke....

      guess he didn't tell you how to be funny though.

    2. Re:"Research Projects" by hey! · · Score: 2

      The problem is that all these attempts to interest kids in STEM are so earnest and dull.

      What we should be doing is tempting them with mad science. You see? It's not all death rays and monkey testicle implants.

      It's important to hook them by middle school, when the all important sense of being misunderstood is its keenest.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:"Research Projects" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you looking for a teacher?

  5. Bollocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will our soccer players earn millions of pounds per match now? The bees took their jobs!

    1. Re: Bollocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of the ratings.

      There are significantly more bees who could become serious football fans than people.

      Ratings would go through the roof!

    2. Re:Bollocks! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And will Manchester fans start smashing up beehives now, rather than airline flights?

  6. secret code word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    expect bee stories to climax by May, exactly the same pattern as the past 6 years.

    https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=bees

  7. A new scientific paper, eh? by Nutria · · Score: 2

    Is it repeatable?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:A new scientific paper, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You'll need some bees. Bad news, geek. You can't torrent bees, and 3D printed bees aren't good enough.

    2. Re:A new scientific paper, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As in, league matches?

    3. Re:A new scientific paper, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's very likely to be repeatable. They used different scenarios. One group got taught by using a dummy. Another one by using the ball magentically. Yet another group didn't get shown, and even in that group there were some to figure out how to get to the treat.

      In one instance they even swapped the color of the ball and the ones that got taught via a dummy, even improved the method they got shown - the dummy pushed the ball, the bumblebees started dragging the ball.

      I recommend reading the paper; it's quite awesome, even for non-biologists

    4. Re:A new scientific paper, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually not. If the results are inconclusive they'll do penalty shootouts

    5. Re: A new scientific paper, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes I will too torrent and download some bee, cars and anything I want, mother fucker! Science Bitch!

    6. Re:A new scientific paper, eh? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not just bees, bumble bees. You'd think it would be honey bees that went in for team sports.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  8. Dive by dohzer · · Score: 2

    Did they teach them how to dive for free kicks?

    1. Re:Dive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not yet, but I heard an Italian biologist is now trying to replicate the study, so it's only a matter of time.

    2. Re:Dive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not yet. The bees are still trying to get their heads around the offside rule.

  9. Intelligent bee-ings huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I ALMOST feel bad about my diabolical plot to eradicate the bumblebees, thereby causing worldwide famine.
    *Slinks back to volcanic lair* Bwahahahaha!

  10. No no no!!! by codeButcher · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we are going to have even more bees not pollinating plants, but sitting on couches, drinking beer, and hollering at the telly...

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:No no no!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and pollinating each other

  11. World Cup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, will the bumble bees play in the next world cup?

  12. Vuvuzelas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally vuvuzelas will be appropriate at soccer matches.

  13. Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole story makes me think: bumblebees have very primitive, simple brains, with comparatively few neurons (I've heard reports which mention one million) yet they master the task which seems impossible for any "AI" invented to this day. I've got a feeling a modern CPU with 4 billion transistors running at 4GHz (at least 4 million times faster than brains in nature which work at up to 1000Hz a second) and having 128GB of RAM can easily replicate all the processes running in the bumblebee's brain yet no one is doing that to the best of my knowledge.

    What's more I've heard that even extremely primitive earthworms show signs of intelligence yet we cannot recreate their AI. That makes me feel true or general AI is still nowhere close and all this talk about "AI", is really a talk about smart algorithms which cannot reason or create (new solutions, new behavioral patterns, new ideas, new concepts) which is the staple of any true intelligent entity.

    1. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      can easily replicate all the processes running in the bumblebee's brain

      If bumblebee brains had process management, you might have a point. But they don't. They don't even have well-ordered control flow. Neither do we.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've "heard" a lot of random shit. This isn't a task that an AI can't accomplish, though.

    3. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... talk about smart algorithms ...

      It's early sci-fi that described AI as mechanical humaniods that could think and act as humans. Computer scientists saw it as algorithms too complex to define, it must be learnt from experience. Examples are basic conversations (eg. the computers on 'Star trek' and '2001: A space odyssey'), or forecasting the weather. In the 1950s, scientists predicted such things would be possible in 20 years, (they're still saying that). They didn't understand the numbers of calculations required, that all sensors and experiences contain errors, or that no algorithm can judge experience as educational or failure.

      ... cannot reason or create ...

      An oft ignored part of intelligence seems to be an awareness of self. Control of that awareness is consciousness. Humans have this all the time, enabling us to command other parts of the brain as needed.

      Intelligence seems to have other intrinsic functions too, such as curiosity. Birds and mammals have an instinctive behaviour to perv, even to participate in events around them. These animals are seen as more intelligent than reptiles and insects.

    4. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by jdagius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      @Tashkinov
      Khorosho skazano.
      The problem is that our so-called 'modern' CPUs can only do exactly what they're programmed to do. Yes, they can perform incredibly complex calculations, such as pattern search and recognition, many orders of magnitude faster than humans. But that's not really the same kind of 'intelligence' that we can clearly see in the behavior of living creatures.

      The behavior of CPUs is deterministic, i.e. tend to produce the same output, for a given set of inputs. Biological creatures, OTOH, tend to behave non-deterministically, that is their behaviors, given identical inputs, tend to produce varying sets of output behaviors, with ranges of variances that are difficult to predict.

      Nature itself is only partially predictable. (We like to call the part we can't predict "noise".) So the behavior of electro-mechanical robots is very noisy because robots must process noisy sensor data using deterministic methods. Their programs merely react to input, so the humans who write their programs must somehow 'teach' them how to anticipate and react to all possible input scenarios. Which of course is computationally intractable, even for a planet-sized digital computer.

      So, mathematically, robots are modeled as servomechanisms, which can operate automatically (more or less) by measuring responses received on their sensors and applying a kind of negative-feedback to reduce the variance of possible behaviors caused by 'recognizing noise' in a non-deterministic world.

      We living creatures are much better at this kind of 'automatic behavior' because we are intrinsically non-deterministic machines, whose behaviors don't always 'make sense', but get us, sometimes, to some desired goals, more effectively and efficiently than simple 'random' behavior.

      I believe there is a 'Life Principle', which is not yet fully understood, that makes this possible, by imbuing living creatures with mechanisms for consciousness (self-awareness) and motivation (desires and fears). So living creatures tend to have real-time 'situational awareness', which allows them, in effect, to connect to reality and understand and react to the world in terms of their own fears and desires. More or less.

      Humans seem to have a lot of this kind of intelligence. Bumblebees not as much. But even the humblest earthworm seems to perceive a buzz of reality which helps them find the dark moist places they love (and avoid the dry, prickly places they fear). Digital computers perform more poorly in these simple reality tasks. (But can compute Pi to a million places easily!)

      Will humans be able to build robots with this same kind of Life Principle? I think so, but first we have to study biological life more and actually figure out how it works, up to understanding how consciousness, fear, love and hate operate at a microscopic level.

      Currently we can't even draw the simplest circuit diagram for 'consciousness', or build any simple device that 'understands' reality like we (think) we do.

    5. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree!

      seems the in people, most neurons are used to conform to things out of fear. bees.. simply being part of a colony, with no thought of gaining advantages by merit, would naturally display a level of raw level of intelligences, exceeding in proportion even that of the wild-man geniuses so rare and feared in humanity!

    6. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can make a neural net but we don't know how to hook it up. A brain isn't just a bunch of general purpose neurons attached in a grid, they're connected in meaningful and contextual ways.

    7. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole story makes me think: bumblebees have very primitive, simple brains, with comparatively few neurons (I've heard reports which mention one million) yet they master the task which seems impossible for any "AI" invented to this day. I've got a feeling a modern CPU with 4 billion transistors running at 4GHz (at least 4 million times faster than brains in nature which work at up to 1000Hz a second) and having 128GB of RAM can easily replicate all the processes running in the bumblebee's brain yet no one is doing that to the best of my knowledge.

      What's more I've heard that even extremely primitive earthworms show signs of intelligence yet we cannot recreate their AI. That makes me feel true or general AI is still nowhere close and all this talk about "AI", is really a talk about smart algorithms which cannot reason or create (new solutions, new behavioral patterns, new ideas, new concepts) which is the staple of any true intelligent entity.

      The scary thing is there is a relatively large subset of the population who will believe any hype and trust technology easily. Using algorithms to make hard decisions is a the first step in the slow process of creating an actual, physical divide between the haves and the have nots. No longer will the rich and their corporations need to hire filthy humans with their humanity and judgement and empathy. They can use cold, calculating algorithms to be even more ruthless. The truly scary thing is that many of us know that this AI is just slightly better statistical algorithms that are still built by other humans. Once we accept AI everywhere, the rich can abuse us that much more easily.

    8. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Well, they have been under QA for what, 120 million years?

      And every time a defect was and fixed it created a different set of defects. So QA kept forking the source branch and running tests on all branches. Until some branches were clearly showing no improvement, which were pruned. But all branches that still had some hope were kept alive and kept in the test bench.

      With our modern billions of transistors, running at several GHz, we might be able to get there 10 or even 100 times faster. So check back in 1.2. Don't start the clock till the QA effort has been funded and kicked off.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Funny you mention worms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSv581S8HVM. Here's another video showing it off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWQnzylhgHc.

      We're still a long way away from understanding this well enough to do anything really crazy, but we're starting to get a grasp of how it works.

    10. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never laughed so hard in my entire life.

      It's the best IT joke I've heard in years.

      Thank you!

    11. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neuron network has little to do with how real complex brains function and also it's been proven that real life neurons and their interconnections are several orders of magnitude more complex that what we've come up with so far.

    12. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people are asking the computer to "solve" the wrong thing and -Gary tee- a result. If you create a system of loose feedback loops and outcome based annealing then you can infact get these types of behavior simulated in computers you just also can't -garuntee- results. That's why most "advanced AIs" are basically black boxes functionally speaking.

      What we need now is small networks of simple annealed AIs connected with interspersed feedback. I garuntee you'll start to see this stuff in the near future.

    13. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Proven by who in what year? At one point this was clearly true. Currently this isn't so clear. In a couple of years it may well be clearly false.

      Also, to assert that the neuron network has little to do with how rel complex brains function requires decent evidence. To assert that some particular neural network doesn't have much similarity may well be true, but there are lots of different designs of neural nets out there.

      Now I've heard plausible arguments to the effect that the chemical gradients mediated by glia cells are so significant to the functioning of a mammalian brain that you can't have a reasonable emulation without also emulating them, and this may well be correct. Proving that it's correct is a bit of a task, and if anyone has done it, I haven't encountered the reference, much less decided whether or not I believe it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Biological creatures, OTOH, tend to behave non-deterministically, that is their behaviors, given identical inputs, tend to produce varying sets of output behaviors

      Care to produce any evidence to back that up?

      Which is more likely: that the system under investigation is non-deterministic, or that your model of it doesn't capture the entire state, or all of the inputs, or both?

      I'm aware that various arguments for the non-determinism of either the CNS or the mind (depending on the of abstraction the arguer prefers) have been advanced, for example by Penrose. I don't find Penrose's position compelling (or even mildly persuasive), but at least it's more sophisticated than handwaving appeals to a magical "Life Principle".

    15. Re:Intelligence doesn't require that many neurons? by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      This whole story makes me think: bumblebees have very primitive, simple brains, with comparatively few neurons (I've heard reports which mention one million)

      This seems to make them perfectly suitable to play the sport of soccer.

  14. In time by bickerdyke · · Score: 0

    Is it still in time for the ignobel awards?

    --
    bickerdyke
  15. There's hope for coons yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they can teach coons algebra.

  16. Sweet Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our insect overlords... far better than the ruling sovereign elite.

  17. it's called football by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's called football.
    what the americans play is an "egg-carrying-hand-game"

  18. Step 2 by burtosis · · Score: 2

    Get the bees watching half naked, painted up and drunk and see if it really does help the bees on the field.

    1. Re:Step 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bees are already painted and drunk! Did you think those stripes are natural? Those are fan colors! They wear tiny jerseys, or body paint or something.

      Bees in their natural habitat are pink, hairless, very polite and never sting.

      Get 'em hopped up on a little Nectar of the Gods though, and look out! It's all "Whoop! Whoop! Look at me, I'm gonna pollinate the Hell out of that Flower! Oh, I don' feel so good... do u have a bucket, I'm gonna... BLEAHRGH!!"

  19. A new theory has been formed. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Most impressively, the insects didn't simply copy each other -- they watched their companions do it, then figured out on their own how to accomplish the task even more efficiently using their own techniques.

    This has spawned a new theory that the bees are Japanese.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Why the persistent underestimation? by fygment · · Score: 2

    More proof that biology is not science. The persistent underestimation of where life can exist, how intelligent various form of life are, questions of feeling pain or emotion ... it just signals that biology is nothing more than an observational practice with no first principles and deeply flawed fundamental assumptions about almost every aspect of the field.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Why the persistent underestimation? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Some of it is just good old stubbornness (heavier than air flying machines will never be possible!) and some of it is just having to overcome the assumptions based on, let's face it, manifest destiny. We can do whatever we want to those animals, because God gave them to us, and we'll make up any excuses necessary to justify it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re: Why the persistent underestimation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heresy! Everyone knows air will only carry insects, birds and balloons to any significant degree!

    3. Re:Why the persistent underestimation? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      This is definitely one of the more hilariously misguided understandings of scientific epistemology that I've seen lately. Thanks!

    4. Re:Why the persistent underestimation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All science starts with "observational practice". And "first principles" are what Aristotle used, that approach has been out of fashion since Galileo.

  21. Arise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Such unprecedented cognitive flexibility hints that entirely novel behaviors could emerge relatively swiftly in species whose lifestyle demands advanced learning abilities, should relevant ecological pressures arise."

    Once they figure out we're not only the soccer coach, we're also what's killing them, our time here is up.

  22. Real soccer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they also teach the bees to dive into the grass whenever another bee passes close to them?

  23. Quidich by mr_java66 · · Score: 0

    Do I even have to say it? Bees clearly play Quidich!

  24. The hard part is teaching them golf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they know how to put balls into holes just covering them with royal jelly is the hard part

  25. At last, the reason for the Colony Collapses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many science projects forcing the bees to do unnatural stuff.

  26. Pity the referee by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't want to be the ref for a match like this. "Red card -- AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!"

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  27. Why? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    ...Because they can.

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  28. Don't be fooled by neuron count by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    Researchers are finding that neurons are not simple computational units but rather a network of computational units (e.g. dendrites performing pattern matching and filtering, multiple independent signalling, etc.). A lot more is going on at a lower level than previously thought (as is usually the case).

    1. Re:Don't be fooled by neuron count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which takes as even further away from implementing a single human brain in silicon. Damn. I thought it would happen during my life, now it looks like it's not gonna happen in the next 100 years.

  29. New business venture by Fotmasta · · Score: 1

    "Bees??? No! BEADS!"

    --
    "It was like that when I got here."
  30. Can they teach starlings to fly under water? by hughbar · · Score: 1

    Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling nearly managed this several years ago. Here is the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  31. The problem with "science"... by ckatko · · Score: 1

    > demonstrating that they're even more complex thinkers than we thought,"

    If you think the only things that exist are the ones we've been able to prove exist, then you're not a very good scientist.

    Occam's Razor isn't a scientific device. It's a philosophical one. In the year 1000, Occam's Razor would have suggested the world was flat. It fulfills most or all of people's expectations, based on human knowledge and logic, discovered up till that point. And yet all of human history screams that we are still living in a era of "flat world" science.

    One of those blind spots is our hubris in thinking that just because we can't communicate with animals and other species, that they're not actually intelligent creatures capable of abstract thought. For example, animal not being able to pass your tests, does not mean the animal is dumb. It's also possible that the tests are designed poorly from a lack of understanding of the animal.

    1. Re:The problem with "science"... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Possibly in the year 1000 BCE Occam's Razor would have suggested the world was flat, but not since Aristarchus. Unless you map "I don't know, I haven't looked" onto "there's no evidence".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. Playing Soccer Isn't Intelligent! But Bee Rugby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a clear demonstration of true human-level intelligence. And if you can teach them to stay afterwards for a couple of brews....

  33. Once they can teach them to toss the sphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then they can actually play bee ball.

  34. Finally! by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

    This is excellent news. Because bees die shortly after fouling, this greatly reduces the opportunity for controversial calls by the referees. At last we can have truly reliable football matches.