Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (6639.1)
    Can the apocalypse truly be far behind?

    "After 500 generations, 60 percent of the robots had evolved to keep their light off when they found the good resource, hogging it all for themselves. Even more telling, a third of the robots evolved to actually look for the liars by developing an aversion to the light; the exact opposite of their original programming! "

    Full story on:
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other
  2.  (6639.2)
    I found this interesting, as theres a theory that humankind evolved the way it did, due to humans learning to lie. I can't find the document currently, but I will edit to include it if/when I find it.
    The premise was that human evolution was pretty much a straightforward race using nothing more than brute force. Big/strong easily coerces smaller/weaker and oddly this theory contemplated that even learning to wield basic weapons didn't do much to distort this, as eventually, even if you were smarter, whilst being small/weak, someone as smart, or nearly as smart but bigger/stronger than you would have the moxy to mimic your idea, and bash you over the head with a branch. Lying proved to be the undoing of the non lying, regardless of their physical prowess or base intellect, because without the ability to comprehend falsities, the advantage in food gathering/ breeding/ settling, would go to those that knew facts, and were able to lie, were able to lower the survival chances of those that couldn't grasp the concept that when someone was indicating they had no food, they in fact had a KFC bucket hidden under the bearskin.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
     (6639.3)
    Next step: Robots work as Fox News anchors.
  3.  (6639.4)
    @Stygmata
    -you mean their anchors aren't robots already?
    •  
      CommentAuthorBee-Lo
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
     (6639.5)
    I was with it right up until the top-scoring genomes were ' mated and mutated ', that completely lost me and made the article's conclusions a little foggy. What does that mean in a practical sense?
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009 edited
     (6639.6)
    You take the code from the most successful machines, cut it up into chunks and randomly combine the chunks from different machines into the operating programs for the next generation and then make small random changes to the new programs.

    So you have a way for the code to mutate and for the successful mutations to spread through the population.