SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-way-to-charge-the-batteries-is-a-robot-disaster dept.
A computer science team at The University of Texas at Austin has found that robots evolve more quickly and efficiently after a virtual mass extinction modeled after real-life disasters such as the one that killed off the dinosaurs. Beyond its implications for artificial intelligence, the research supports the idea that mass extinctions actually speed up evolution by unleashing new creativity in adaptations.
Computer scientists Risto Miikkulainen and Joel Lehman co-authored the study published today in the journal PLOS One, which describes how simulations of mass extinctions promote novel features and abilities in surviving lineages.
"Focused destruction can lead to surprising outcomes," said Miikkulainen, a professor of computer science at UT Austin. "Sometimes you have to develop something that seems objectively worse in order to develop the tools you need to get better."
The original article from Science Daily.
The original source from The University of Texas.
The abstract of the study published in PLOS One.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:04PM
Increased change pace is not necessarily the same as "better", in an absolute sense (however defined). If an event removes say 90% of species, that creates a lot of open niches to fill, and filling those niches will result in "evolution" in a sense of evolution=change. But all that change is not necessarily some kind of better general design or "sophistication" (as humans typically define it).
We don't know if, for example, dinosaurs could have evolved into intelligent language-using species if the Big Rock didn't arrive. We can't observe that path. There's evidence some were warm-blooded. Anomalocaris may even be debating politics on TV right now if not for extinction events. (I'm resisting the urge to make might-be-a jokes about the current candidates.) The fact that filling newly-opened niches creates "change" is indeed a Captain Obvious situation, as another poster pointed out. It would be more surprising if it didn't result in change, such as the same general branches re-filling the same niches as before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:24PM
The same is true for an economy. A bad economy that is catching up to a good economy will show much higher growth rates. Yet it is not really a better economy for that. Indeed, it's much better to live in a low-growth developed economy than in a fast-growing underdeveloped one. Of course, little growth does not necessarily mean a good economy. It may as well be a sign for a bad economy that doesn't manage to get better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:31PM
I should also point out that "big brains" are not necessarily a sign of efficiency. One could argue an efficient organism wouldn't need a big brain, it would have fine-tuned instincts factored compactly. Brains are calorie hogs. We may be a mere fluke of nature. Thus, simulations that measure robot efficiency or speed may have nothing to do with the evolution of intelligence.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday August 13 2015, @05:29PM
We may be a mere fluke of nature.
What we are is simply another specialization, intelligence. While it has made us extremely adaptable and far more capable of altering our environment than any previous species, in the end it is just another niche, and if our emotional evolution fails to catch up with our intelligence we are capable of eventually destroying ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:07AM
I suspect we came from an isolated group of apes in an area where trees were gradually disappearing on all sides. These apes had to defends themselves more often with sticks and stones because there were fewer trees to hide in, and apes are not particular quick on the ground. After a while they evolved proficient enough with sticks and stones to either hunt with them on a regular basis, or to steal meat from other animals using the power of numbers, not unlike hyenas. Our initial defense became our offense and we became the first in an untapped niche.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:32PM
Indeed, it's much better to live in a low-growth developed economy than in a fast-growing underdeveloped one.
Until the low-growth developed economy trades places with the latter and becomes the low-growth underdeveloped economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:37PM
If that happens, either the low-growth developed economy was not really developed, but just less underdeveloped, or the developed economy stagnated not only at growth, but also at innovation, and therefore was out-innovated by the growing one (in that case, the developed economy is now actually shrinking, as the newcomer is eating its lunch).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 14 2015, @12:20AM
or the developed economy stagnated not only at growth, but also at innovation,
This. Industry has been fleeing the developed world for a half century, productive scientific research has devolved into welfare for eggheads, and short term thinking has become amply rewarded. There are consequences to that.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:45PM
> Increased change pace is not necessarily the same as "better", in an absolute sense (however defined).
You can't define it. You have to pick sides to state "better", because after a little while any resource becomes a competitive game, with a losing side. Faster adaptation would only be better if there was a victory lane.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:45PM
I can imagine that a crowded environment doesn't allow for big evolutionary steps. Too much change will likely lead to death in the first generation. But if the first generations get the time and space to survive, the original 'evolutionary flaw' will have a lot more chance to make it into a new species. So accelerated evolution after mass extinction does sound logical to me.