Living Machines

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#1
http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/machines_pr.html

The New Facts of Life
Scientific advances point to a startling conclusion: The nonliving world is very much alive.
by Christopher Meyer

Copernicus demoted humanity by removing Earth from the center of the universe. Darwin showed that, rather than being made in God's image, people were merely products of nature's experimentation. Now, advances in fields as disparate as computer science and genetics are dealing our status another blow. Researchers are learning that markets and power grids have much in common with plants and animals. Their findings lead to a startling conclusion: Life isn't the exception, but the rule.

The notion that the inorganic world is alive is as old as mythology; think of Poseidon, the Greek personification of the sea. However, the tools available to examine life at its most essential - DNA sequencing, bioinformatics, gene chips - are new. We're beginning to discern life processes at their fundamental level, and as we re-create these processes in silico, we're starting to see how they work in inorganic settings. It turns out that many of life's properties - emergence, self-organization, reproduction, coevolution - show up in systems generally regarded as nonliving.

EMERGENCE describes the way unpredictable patterns arise from innumerable interactions between independent parts. An organism's behavior, for instance, is driven by the interplay of its cells. Similarly, weather develops from the mixing of oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and other molecules.

SELF-ORGANIZATION is a basic emergent behavior. Plants and animals assemble and regulate themselves independent of any hierarchy for planning or management. Digital simulations made up of numerous software agents have demonstrated self-organization in systems ranging from computer networks to tornadoes.

REPRODUCTION was considered strictly the purview of organisms until recently. Now computer programs procreate, too. Genetic algorithms mimic biology's capacity for innovation through genetic recombination and replication, shuffling 1s and 0s the way nature does DNA's Gs, Ts, As, and Cs, then reproducing the best code for further recombination. This technique has been used to evolve everything from factory schedules to jet engines.

COEVOLUTION inevitably accompanies evolution. When an organism evolves in response to environmental change, it puts new pressures on that environment, which likewise evolves, prompting further evolution in the organism. This cycle occurs in many social systems - for instance, the interaction between behavioral norms and legal codes.

These life properties are already being built into real-world devices, like Sony's robotic dog Aibo; put two of them together and their personalities will coevolve. The line between organisms and machines is beginning to blur.

Consider a hypothetical pod of Predator drones. Each unmanned aerial vehicle monitors terrain, weather, and potential threats, and continuously receives target updates and transmits its findings via satellite. The drones are motivated by two rules: hunger for valuable intelligence and repulsion from other drones to minimize redundant observation. These rules enable the UAVs to direct themselves better than any dispatcher could. Other rules help the fleet survive. When a drone observes a hostile signature - missile, rocket-propelled grenade, rifle fire - it executes an evasive maneuver from a stored repertoire. As Predators live and die by these rules, they generate new information about fitness under various conditions. Genetic algorithms use this data to breed more effective rules. Predators are connected, so if one is shot down over Afghanistan, all drones everywhere gain improved responses to that form of attack. This is precisely how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, only faster.

This sounds far-out until you realize that something similar is already happening on your desktop, when Norton AntiVirus updates virus definitions automatically over the Internet. In fact, networks could play a critical role as machines come to resemble living creatures. In life, as on the Net, connections matter more than processors. The Internet could allow sensors to interact in emergent ways, forming an autonomic nervous system for the physical world. An early version is taking root in Los Angeles, where sensors at intersections identify approaching buses and ask a central computer whether they're on time. Late buses get the green light; the system gives crossing traffic extra time in subsequent cycles. The result: 25 percent improvement in transit times without creating congestion.

Oddly enough, our growing knowledge of life processes could have its biggest impact in the social sciences. Social systems, after all, are made up of interacting agents, i.e., people. When we become adept at applying these insights to the social sphere, we'll be able to run simulations that reveal, say, the conditions under which Iraq would reconstruct itself. At that point, the new science of life will help us not only live better, but live better together.

Christopher Meyer is coauthor of It's Alive: The Coming Convergence of Information, Biology, and Business.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#5
I personally doubt it would affect us in a major way. No matter how complex machines get, we always install the front and back doors. Humans will always have hands on the kill switch.

The examples of "autonomy", "coevolution", etc. are mere conceptual concepts. Recombinant code switching and on-the-fly updating may be byproducts of survivalist action and actions associated with bacteria, but they still have to be programmed in by humans. The earliest computers were essentially hole-punchers, and at the digital level, they still are.

The concept of "Evolution" placed into the programming logic of computers is a very fascinating subject. Computers using "evolution" - natural selection, inheritance, etc. - thought up very interesting solutions to problems that human engineers could not. "Natural selection" in engineering went something like this; If route A results in increased interference, try all other available routes. When best route is found, re-route best route to route A. Inheritance is basically taking the best functions of your predecessor and applying them. If Route 1A is always superior, keep route 1A in next version of program.

This method actually produced some unique, patented solutions to problems already designed by human engineers, and sometimes better things resulted. However, the processing power of one human mind is more powerful than every single computer in the world.

Computers and artificial life are still at a very, very basic level of cognition. What will most likely make the next "leap" will be the time when humans teach computers not just to accomodate new variables into strict interpretive data patterns, but to take in a completely new concept, understand it, and use it. That's at *least* ten years down the road.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#6
WHITE DEVIL said:
Humans will always have hands on the kill switch.
I completely disagree. You have to think about the possibilities on a large scale. Hundreds, even thousands of years down the road, comrade. Major advances are being made as we speak, just think of the possibilities a few hundred years from now.

The current road block is "random" thought. As of today, no computer is capable of truly computing anything random--there are only tricks used to make it seem they are random.

With the recent find of the section of brain that generates random thought, a truly intelligent computer is not far fetched at all and could possibly be in existence sooner then you think.

You should also consider the use of carbon based components that will soon revolutionize the computer world as we know it. The silicon chip industry may only last another 10-15 years. NASA scientists have already incorporated tiny carbon nanotubes instead of copper conductors.
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#10
2-0-Sixx said:
I completely disagree. You have to think about the possibilities on a large scale. Hundreds, even thousands of years down the road, comrade. Major advances are being made as we speak, just think of the possibilities a few hundred years from now.

The current road block is "random" thought. As of today, no computer is capable of truly computing anything random--there are only tricks used to make it seem they are random.

With the recent find of the section of brain that generates random thought, a truly intelligent computer is not far fetched at all and could possibly be in existence sooner then you think.

You should also consider the use of carbon based components that will soon revolutionize the computer world as we know it. The silicon chip industry may only last another 10-15 years. NASA scientists have already incorporated tiny carbon nanotubes instead of copper conductors.
they have computers looking at lava lamps that produce random numbers, what u talking about?
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#12
Random as in...data that is not based on a formula. Computers cannot do anything, at this point, that we don't tell them to. And our brain and brain chemistry continue to be a huge enigma. We are not even scratching the surface of our brain capacity and efficacy.