Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327100335.h...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136970211...
edit: it is also used as a sensor:
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-12-scientists-smartwatch-po...
It's interesting because dragonflies only have about 10,000 neurons, whereas harbour porpoises have like 14 and a half billion. Slime molds aren't meaningfully intelligent at all, but they can work out problems our primate brains had to work quite a long time to systematize. This suggests, to me at least, that dragonflies and slime molds are worthy of further consideration.
...that said, I try not to read the popsci articles about either.
Neurons are obviously excellent at handling and developing "intelligent" behavior, but it turns out they're not as necessary as we thought and there may be extreme efficiency gains possible (for specialized problems) over what traditional neural architecture indicates.
Slime molds aren't ready-made solutions to practical problems. They're a signposted paradigm shift that indicates we need to re-evaluate some of our a prioris. Alongside advances in understanding complex behaviors in plants, slime molds represent one of the largest challenges to long-standing assumptions we've had for millenia. Unfortunately the response to recorded behaviors of adaptation, memory, learning, problem solving in things without neural structures has hilariously been to shift goal posts and underline said neural structures as a prerequisite to these things being meaningful. Silly things like "super computer slime" and pop science articles drown out the incredibly important experimental observations made about these beautiful organisms, this much I agree with.
Maybe this simply speaks to the quality of education or the exposure of the average person to algorithms and conditional logic.