














Comments     Threshold


Equivocating the term evolution
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/21/2011 11:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly the robots are just maturing and not evolving. I don't think the researcher understands what the term means. What a moron.

By solarrocker on 1/21/2011 11:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, would say it looks more like they improved the learning capabilities of AI.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By MozeeToby on 1/21/2011 12:20:30 PM , Rating: 5
It's not entirely clear but I think the evolving part comes earlier in the research than the robot part. It says they ran 5000 simulations on different body plans to find optimal body plans via a genetic algorithm (I can give a rundown on what exactly a genetic algorithm is if you'd like, just let me know). Basically, they're using ideas from evolutionary biology to do the engineering work for them. You just specify the possible parts, provide a simulation and a scoring function and the genetic algorithm does the rest.

What makes the article hard to follow is that they used a second genetic algorithm to optimize the movements of each design (and I believe let the results carry over from one generation to the next). That makes it sound as though each individual robot design is 'evolving' the ability to walk efficiently, which is on a computing level true enough, but on a biologically level is closer to the way a brain develops new skills.

What they found was that robots that evolved were more stable than robots that had been designed. If I had to guess I would say that it has to do with the controlling behaviors evolving over time as the robots form changes from one simulated generation to the next. That would result in behaviors that are less specialized and more flexible than a human designed behavior would be.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By geddarkstorm on 1/21/2011 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 4
The best way to learn how to do something right, is to be able to sample ways that fail and gradually build up to it. That's what all learning entails. In that way, this is a seriously cool breakthrough. A truly learning machine that optimized itself via experimentation!

However... Learning is now "evolution"? Well... evolution does just mean change or unfolding, but we are diluting the word considerably; and the pictures in the article trying to tie it in to genetic based biological evolution, which this is NOT, only continues to obfuscate the meaning. This is learning. An algorithm had a hard set of parameters which it learned by experimentation to optimize the score for. Why is all learning now connotating biological evolution?

Oh well, science-terms-being-over-used-till-they-lose-their- meaning-and-breed-needless-confusion gripes aside, this is a sweet leap forward for AI and robotics research.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By MozeeToby on 1/21/2011 4:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's referred to as evolution because of the way the learning takes place. Genetic algorithms are very cool and can solve a wide range of problems, so long as you have a way to easily score a possible solution. Here's how it works:

You randomly generate a population of possible solutions. None of them are going to work, because they're all completely random, but you put them into your simulation anyway and let them have a go. If you're lucky, a few of them will hobble forward a couple inches just due to purely spastic and purposeless movements.

So, you rank all possible solutions and based on the rank, they are more or less likely to reproduce into the next generation. Depending on the technique being used, you'll generally create the next generation by combining portions of solutions from the previous (basically, 2 possible solutions produce offspring that have characteristics of both of them) and/or by through mutations (insertion, deletion, bit flips, etc). And then you do it all over again, and again, and again.

The code that describes each possible solution is analogous to DNA, the scoring function to natural selection, and the mating and mutations to... well, mating and mutations.

In this case, the researchers were using two sets of genetic algorithms in parallel with each other. One to optimize the robot's form, and a second to optimize the robots behavior. In the first, the analogy is more easily understood, each generation is a simulated robot. In the the second, the analogy isn't as apparent because nothing physically changes from one generation to the next. It's using the concepts of evolution (selection, mating, mutations) to produce a piece of software.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By drycrust3 on 1/23/2011 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2

Nonsense! As others have said, all this guy is doing is diluting the meaning of the word "Evolution". This is just an example of artificial intelligence, which should be expected with our current level of technological development.
In fact, one could easily argue it should have been expected at least 10 years ago, if not 20 years ago, so this is just another example of the theory of Evolution holding science back, not helping it move forward!

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By Myg on 1/24/2011 6:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing "holding science back" is their utter need to disprove God and attain immortality through any means.

The LHC and murdering children for stem cells to attain these goals are perfect examples, if any are needed.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By kalak on 1/25/2011 1:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
You are really a troll, don't you ?
MozzeToby post a great explanation and you insist with your "nonsense!" bullshit...
The word "evolution" could agregate much more meaning than the simple "Darwin" definition. The robots software is evolving. It is learning and adapting to the surroundings. Becoming better robots (robots with a larger chance of survival). Is it not evolution ?

By drycrust3 on 1/28/2011 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
You are really a troll

No, I don't consider myself a troll, I consider myself as a champion for good science. Why should proponents of the theory of Evolution get an exemption from the normal protocols of science? No other field of science is given an exemption, and you certainly wouldn't allow Creationists to postulate theories without some credible proof as to their validity, so why should Evolutionists be given an exemption? If, as they claim, their theory is so scientifically sound and so well proven that it should be regarded as a fact, then they should be the first ones following the rules, not the first ones breaking them.

If MozzeToby wants to postulate a different theory from what Darwin postulated, then he is entirely free to do so. The problem is that when we talk about "the theory of Evolution" then we have to talk about what Darwin postulated because that is the only theory of Evolution that counts. If we add bits to his theory then it isn't his theory anymore.
This article highlights the fact that what people perceive as the theory of Evolution and what it is are two different things, which surely is a sign that what Darwin postulated is seriously out of date with what science has revealed to us about life.

The robots software is evolving.

Is it? Gathering data from sensors about your body and your environment, storing it, processing it, and then deciding on how to behave isn't software evolving, it is just an example of a computer program doing what it was intended to do!
As I said above, if you seriously believe the robot's software evolved then prove that it has evolved.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/24/2011 7:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
So basically the hardware engineers were using standard product R&D techniques, and the software engineers designed the control systems to learn the best configuration. None of this is new in the business world - it is mostly quantitative business analysis and change management. I guess if you have only ever been in academia, it is fun to think of it as evolution.

RE: Equivocating the term evolution
By Flunk on 1/21/2011 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think they mean evolution as in the term evolutionary AI which is a process of creating enhanced AI through a set of processes that involves multiple generations, picking the best solution and throwing in some randomization. It's not really analogous to organic evolution, more inspired by.



