A Simple Algorithm That Ants Use to Build Bridges
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
1.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1380471/Survi... 2. https://entomologytoday.org/2014/02/11/ants-can-lift-up-to-5... 3. https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/01928...
I wonder if different species of Ants have different solutions? Like a large species might be able to do something smaller ants cannot.
Also, the cobwebs require a pretty simple algorithm followed diligently.
This kind of thing is responsible for much, much more than ant behavior.
It's fine if we want to take math as literally being the stuff of existence, but not so great if math is just a map. Because nature doesn't use any maps, being that it is the territory.
It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm.
> assumptions about the universe being mathematical,
Parts of the universe can be modeled with mathematics. If you extend mathematics to include algorithms and not just equations or systems of equations, then even more of the universe can.
I don't follow what your confusion is, exactly. Could you try explaining it differently please?
When we say that A is B, or A implements C, which B is known for implementing, and we don't caveat it as an analogy or model, then we're making an existence claim about A's nature. We're saying that A is fundamentally B stuff.
> It means that nature, in this case the ants, perform the steps of the algorithm.
Does that mean an ant nest IS A computer? Does nature literally compute? Or is that just a helpful way of looking at things?
My point that the language of the article is smuggling in an ontological claim about nature. Maybe it's only meant as a useful mental model and not an actual existence claim. But maybe not. And some people will take it literally.
How do the last ants cross the gap? When and why do they start to break the bridge apart?
Or are the last ants simply left alone to find another way to catch up with the colony?
Obviously, it's a complex topic with a lot of opinions. I spent time in Hans' lab in the mid-1980s. What concerned me is that, in our human ignorance and greed and hubris, we might instead get robotic cockroaches that wipe out humanity and then fade away. Or if we did get strong AIs they might wipe out humanity without noticing, and only a long time later reflect on their origins perhaps with regret.
I left robotics and AI in the late 1980s. That was after creating one of the first simulations of self-replicating robots (on a Symbolics) -- which accidentally turned cannibalistic until I added a sense of smell to avoid eating offspring. Someone from DARPA has also literally patted me on the back as a symposium on AI and Simulation where I presented on that simulation and told me "Keep up the good work". Although I was not sure if that was from my saying how easy it was to make creatures that were destructive (even if they were just striving towards an ideal) or my also saying how we should learn more about designing them to be cooperative.
I've since spent much of my time and energy based on the premise that our direction out of any singularity may have a lot to do with out direction going into one -- so we should make the Earth a place that works better for more people right now. Thus a garden simulator to help people learn to grow their own food (also needed in space habitats), and ways for people to share their stories (which help shape the values of the next generation), and aspiring towards better knowledge management tools in other ways, and creating ways for people to design an abundant tomorrow (like evolutionary arts of plant breeding and music breeding), and exploring alternative economic philosophy like on five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft). And also boiling it all down to my sig, which I hope AIs read and take to heart someday: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
There's a paradox here I think. If they propagate our values, then there's a very good chance that they will crush us. How do more "primitive" people fare in our modern world? Where's neanderthal? What about our primate cousins? Or even the other animal species in general? If AI really share our values, at best we might end up in a zoo.
Enjoy colonizing the Local Group, super AI. Let me play here in a corner in permanirvana. Sometimes possibly as a dinosaur, for cuteness, if my avatar can change forms at will.
[1] http://themindi.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-a...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCONd1SNf3_QqjzjCVsURNuA
I always endup scratching myself when I watch these :)
"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest."
Ants have amazing distributed algorithms.
Has someone done this before? A google search gives a bunch of ant simulations, but I don't see any that include bridge building logic.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/turtles-termites-and-traffic-...
The final quote is from another researcher in a reaction quote about army ants. It's not clear what the context this other researcher has in mind. Of course 'they aren't as simple as we might think' is a pretty safe guess.
Here's the meat:
"To see how this unfolds, take the perspective of an ant on the march. When it comes to a gap in its path, it slows down. The rest of the colony, still barreling along at 12 centimeters per second, comes trampling over its back. At this point, two simple rules kick in.
The first tells the ant that when it feels other ants walking on its back, it should freeze. “As long as someone walks over you, you stay put,” Garnier said." [the 2nd rule is less explicitly stated, so you need to read the article to get a sense of it]