[HN Gopher] Scientists Find an 'Alphabet' in Whale Songs
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Scientists Find an 'Alphabet' in Whale Songs
        
       Author : tintinnabula
       Score  : 158 points
       Date   : 2024-05-10 18:28 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
        
       | bradrn wrote:
       | Paper link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47221-8
        
         | vixen99 wrote:
         | Much appreciated
        
         | robxorb wrote:
         | The chart on page 6 (of the PDF) is fascinating, kind of sums
         | up the findings visually.
        
       | WaxProlix wrote:
       | Can we tokenize these signals? A ripe new market for LLM-based
       | solutions may be opening up!
        
         | gabesullice wrote:
         | If we could (we probably can), we'd have a fluent LLM that
         | would generate sounds that we still couldn't understand.
        
           | pton_xd wrote:
           | Couldn't the LLM translate it to words that have similar
           | embeddings in our own language? Translation is one of the
           | tasks that LLMs excel at.
        
             | dotnet00 wrote:
             | Don't you actually need manual translations to feed into
             | the model first for that? AFAIK LLMs are not sci-fi-esque
             | magic universal translators.
        
               | truculent wrote:
               | Not necessarily. For example:
               | 
               | https://engineering.fb.com/2018/08/31/ai-
               | research/unsupervis...
               | 
               | > Training an MT model without access to any translation
               | resources at training time (known as unsupervised
               | translation) was the necessary next step. Research we are
               | presenting at EMNLP 2018 outlines our recent
               | accomplishments with that task. Our new approach provides
               | a dramatic improvement over previous state-of-the-art
               | unsupervised approaches and is equivalent to supervised
               | approaches trained with nearly 100,000 reference
               | translations. To give some idea of the level of
               | advancement, an improvement of 1 BLEU point (a common
               | metric for judging the accuracy of MT) is considered a
               | remarkable achievement in this field; our methods showed
               | an improvement of more than 10 BLEU points.
               | 
               | Although, this specific method does require the relative
               | conceptual spacing of words to be similar between
               | language; I don't see how that would be the case for
               | Human <-> Whale languages.
        
             | lossolo wrote:
             | No, translation from one language to the other doesn't
             | occur in vacuum, there are millions of examples of
             | translated text done by humans, without it LLM wouldn't
             | learn anything.
        
             | afelixdorn wrote:
             | You would need to align the vectors of words in our
             | language to the ones in their language... which requires
             | knowing their language (or enough of it)
        
           | Udo wrote:
           | It's not a completely useless idea. LLMs are pretty good at
           | relating parallel concepts to each other. If we could
           | annotate the whale speak with behavioral data we might catch
           | something we'd otherwise have missed. Since whale children
           | need to start (almost) from scratch, it sounds worthwhile to
           | tap into that for teaching an LLM alongside a real whale
           | infant.
        
           | sieste wrote:
           | it's an important step though. with a whale llm and chatbot
           | we would have a tool to study whale language and
           | communication actively rather than just being able to listen
           | to their interactions passively. i could think of all sorts
           | of cool experiments with an algorithm that can generate whale
           | click sounds and elicit predictable replies from actual
           | whales.
        
       | ddon wrote:
       | https://archive.is/7prpD
        
         | garciasn wrote:
         | Seems like the NYT found a way to fuck with archive.is. There's
         | a gigantic overlay blocking a ton of the content.
         | 
         | Boo.
        
           | aspenmayer wrote:
           | I found this via the topbar history nav on archive.is when
           | visiting the original link you're replying to:
           | 
           | https://archive.is/vwQ4Z
           | 
           | also available on Internet Archive's Wayback Machine:
           | 
           | https://web.archive.org/web/20240507155229/https://www.nytim.
           | ..
        
           | Etheryte wrote:
           | It is an SVG loading indicator that's broken when embedded on
           | the archive page, nothing to do with NYT trying to obfuscate
           | archival tools.
        
             | pbhjpbhj wrote:
             | >nothing to do with NYT trying to obfuscate archival tools
             | //
             | 
             | How would you know? Seems pretty likely based on how
             | companies try to enshitify the web.
        
               | Etheryte wrote:
               | Looking at the code, there is nothing malignant going on,
               | it's simply a common CSS + SVG bug. Most people wouldn't
               | know how to intentionally write this so that it breaks on
               | one page, but works on the other. Occam's razor etc.
        
           | cobbzilla wrote:
           | install uBlock Origin, block content element, it's gone
           | (until they change things to not match the selector anyway)
        
         | garyfirestorm wrote:
         | Text only alternative -
         | 
         | https://txtify.it/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/science...
        
           | d0gsg0w00f wrote:
           | Never heard of txtify. Amazing
        
       | djtango wrote:
       | Who knew that the sentient life we were looking for were beneath
       | our feet in our deep blue oceans rather than up above the stars.
        
         | hatenberg wrote:
         | Oh we knew.
         | 
         | Hyperion covers this topic quite well.
        
           | salomonk_mur wrote:
           | Douglas Adams had it right, as usual.
        
             | OnlyMortal wrote:
             | "So long and thanks for all the fish"
        
         | BobbyTables2 wrote:
         | Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
        
       | baerrie wrote:
       | It is less like an alphabet, we already know that there is a
       | discreet number of click clusters (basically an alphabet). Here
       | they have found that the sperm whales modulate tempo of these
       | clusters, rhythm within the clusters, add additional ornamental
       | clicks, and change the rhythm of individual clicks within
       | clusters over time (rubato). This adds an insane order of
       | magnitude to their language much like our use of tone, context,
       | and all the other ways we take our alphabet and enrich it with
       | exponentially more meaning. This is the first time this has been
       | proven in an evolutionary lineage separate from ours!
        
         | throwup238 wrote:
         | What are the chances of us being able to decode some of that in
         | our life time? There must be _some_ meaning to it, even if it
         | 's not as complex as human speech.
         | 
         | We should do it just to make sure they're not saying "so long
         | and thanks for all the plankton."
        
           | baerrie wrote:
           | Extremely likely, especially with the increasing abilities of
           | LLM to decode unknown languages. Then the test would be for
           | us to produce these sounds and see if the whales respond as
           | expected.
        
             | droopyEyelids wrote:
             | How would we train the LLM to actually decode it though?
             | Don't we need some way to weigh the results?
        
               | TeMPOraL wrote:
               | My guess: train a generative model to predict whale
               | sounds, based on recordings of real ones, and hope that
               | the resulting latent space will map to the one of a
               | human-trained LLM. We'd need a stupidly large amount of
               | recordings of whale songs, a tokenization scheme, and few
               | already translated sounds/phrases to serve as starting
               | points for mapping the latent spaces.
        
               | baerrie wrote:
               | Exactly. Also, I think an alternative to LLM that is more
               | generally trained towards identifying large linguistic
               | patterns across a language could be cross referenced with
               | the aforementioned more standard llm to at least point to
               | some possible meanings, patterns, etc
        
               | surfingdino wrote:
               | We'd do it without its "help" and give it the results
               | which it would then recombine and hallucinate.
        
               | tomrod wrote:
               | Would just need a way to tokenize, then use predictions
               | to map back to some positive interaction symbol.
               | Something like we think a certain phrasing means "food-
               | fish-100m-down" and whales respond consistently to that.
        
             | darepublic wrote:
             | I dunno if sometimes the language would be contextual, and
             | utterances could not be understood without taking into
             | account the context of what is occurring, or the speaker.
             | Yes I know human language can be subject to these variables
             | too. Anyhow it's all speculation and the dream of talking
             | to animals is surely exciting.
             | 
             | Also, a Youtube doc about researchers attempting to teach
             | dolphins english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziFw-
             | jQSks
        
               | BobbyTables2 wrote:
               | Imagine if they are communicating using a lot of
               | pronouns.
               | 
               | I can't even understand some other people when they keep
               | switching the target of the pronoun without being
               | explicit.
               | 
               | "He is tired. He dropped the ball on his foot. He yelled
               | at him for being tired."
               | 
               | (How many people are here?)
        
               | 082349872349872 wrote:
               | I've heard that "da kine" in Hawai'i Creole English
               | historically was, and still may be, used exactly in
               | situations where the speakers share plenty of context,
               | allowing them to figure out what it denotes, but leaving
               | listeners largely unenlightened.
               | 
               | compare "dude" in Fig. 1 of
               | https://acephalous.typepad.com/79.3kiesling.pdf
        
             | jjtheblunt wrote:
             | What increasing abilities of LLMs to decode unknown
             | languages are you referencing?
             | 
             | (I possibly missed a paper)
        
               | mmmmmbop wrote:
               | See e.g. here: https://ai.meta.com/research/no-language-
               | left-behind/
        
               | dotnet00 wrote:
               | If you scroll down, the very first step they describe is
               | for collecting datasets of existing translations. They
               | aren't translating even unknown human languages, let
               | alone completely alien ones.
        
               | DougBTX wrote:
               | No idea of this is even vaguely in the right direction,
               | but this comes to mind: Unsupervised speech-to-speech
               | translation from monolingual data
               | 
               | https://research.google/blog/unsupervised-speech-to-
               | speech-t...
        
             | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
             | We'll just fine tune our existing models with data scraped
             | from the whale internet. Surely that will work.
        
               | baerrie wrote:
               | You could train an llm on all existing whale sounds, get
               | it to "listen" to live whales and respond with what it
               | "thinks" it should, then do human analysis on the
               | results, maybe find one shred of meaning, rinse and
               | repeat.
        
               | fluoridation wrote:
               | That's literally impossible. Imagine trying to learn
               | Japanese by talking to a Japanese man on the phone, with
               | neither of you being able to understand or see each other
               | or what you're each doing. Without shared context
               | communication is impossible. Best case, you and the
               | Japanese man would create a new context and a new shared
               | language that would be neither English nor Japanese that
               | would allow you to communicate about whatever ideas fit
               | through the phone line. Maybe words like "sound", "word",
               | "stop", etc.
        
               | baerrie wrote:
               | Well even one of those words could be enough. If I knew
               | he was in danger by the terror in his voice well then
               | probably one of those words is "help"
        
             | eschaton wrote:
             | Where do you get this idea that LLMs can be useful "to
             | decode unknown languages" at all?
        
           | beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
           | There's an enormous gap between being able to "decode" it and
           | actually understanding what it means.
           | 
           | Wittgenstein's quote on lions is still relevant.
        
             | canjobear wrote:
             | Wittgenstein didn't present any evidence.
        
             | gessha wrote:
             | Reminds me of the Chinese room [1] argument: Does a
             | computer really understand Chinese language if it can
             | respond to Chinese inputs with Chinese outputs?
             | 
             | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
        
           | canjobear wrote:
           | The topic paper is part of a big project called Project Ceti
           | that's aiming to do just that.
           | 
           | On the theoretical side for why it may be possible, see
           | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.11081
           | https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10931
        
         | sam0x17 wrote:
         | So more sophisticated than a mere alphabet, if anything
        
           | baerrie wrote:
           | Exactly
        
         | gopher_space wrote:
         | The people hand-rolling their own hydrophones think there might
         | be a lot going on we simply haven't been able to hear yet.
        
       | JohnMakin wrote:
       | It always amazes me how science has historically tripped over
       | itself to avoid calling what is clearly some sort of culturally
       | defined communication as "language" when it comes to cetaceans.
       | 
       | I think and suspect these animals are far more intelligent than
       | we guessed, and the ethical ramifications of that reality would
       | be difficult to swallow. Many species of toothed and baleen
       | whales are under threat of extinction according to a lot of
       | climate predictions.
        
         | blackeyeblitzar wrote:
         | Climate isn't the biggest risk to some species. Some orcas
         | (which are technically dolphins) don't have enough supply of
         | the fish they eat. Issues like river and fishery management or
         | dam removal or ocean overfishing don't get enough attention,
         | but would be important to fix even if climate wasn't an issue.
        
           | micromacrofoot wrote:
           | fishing net entanglement is still the biggest problem for
           | some nearly extinct species like the right whale
        
         | bullfightonmars wrote:
         | I think the whole point/perspective of science is that claims
         | have to be provable with evidence. Scientists don't make claims
         | without evidence.
         | 
         | I am sure that there were a lot of preconceived biases that
         | blocked scientific research from occurring in this space, but
         | it might also be that we didn't have the tools to examine
         | evidence until recently.
         | 
         | Scientists are generally very curious, open to exploration, and
         | absolutely want to prove the unproven or refute the previously
         | proven with new evidence. It's how they make their stamp in
         | their field.
        
           | seventytwo wrote:
           | It's both.
        
           | JohnMakin wrote:
           | Pretty sure the reason stuff like this isn't called language
           | is because language is circularly defined as something only
           | homo sapiens does.
        
             | messe wrote:
             | You're pretty sure? Well, that's convinced me. (/s)
             | 
             | I'm not going to debate this topic here, but for what it's
             | worth you're coming across as somebody who has chosen their
             | stance and is cherry-picking their evidence and anecdotes
             | to suit their biases.
             | 
             | While I agree with your suspicion that a lot of animals are
             | more intelligent than most give them credit for, you're not
             | arguing for that viewpoint well. You might want to revisit
             | how you make your points.
        
               | JohnMakin wrote:
               | I mean wikipedia is free but yes this is how it is
               | defined:
               | 
               | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
               | 
               | https://www.britannica.com/topic/language
               | 
               | I've never seen a definition of language in a scientific
               | context that frames it in any other context other than
               | something humans do. Please feel free to show me
               | otherwise. Whether or not you are convinced isn't really
               | my concern - this is a well known scientific thing.
        
             | gloryjulio wrote:
             | Really? Does that mean the term 'alien language' is
             | meaningless?
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_language
        
             | yau8edq12i wrote:
             | Where did you learn this definition? It's the first time I
             | hear something like this. I very much doubt that it's a
             | generally accepted definition.
        
           | bmitc wrote:
           | > Scientists don't make claims without evidence.
           | 
           | History has shown that to not be true.
           | 
           | > Scientists are generally very curious, open to exploration
           | 
           | In my experience, it is the opposite. I often find scientists
           | are in fact very uncurious when it comes to anything outside
           | their domain of choice.
        
             | toenail wrote:
             | > History has shown that to not be true.
             | 
             | [citation needed]
        
               | callalex wrote:
               | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
        
             | netcan wrote:
             | There are definitely examples of individuals, institutions
             | and such not living up to expectations. That said, a "black
             | pill" conclusion that the precise opposite _is_ universally
             | true is even sillier.
             | 
             | Going back to the context... I think scientists, linguists,
             | musicologists and others have in fact been _very_ curious
             | about cetacean  "language" over the decades. There is a
             | hesitation to make "big claims," but that's appropriate...
             | imo.
        
             | jll29 wrote:
             | You could say it like this: "GOOD scientists are very
             | curious."
             | 
             | In fact, the best try to remain child-like in attitude,
             | i.e. being able to be in awe about nature, which adults
             | tend to "unlearn".
        
           | mitthrowaway2 wrote:
           | It's a claim one way or the other, isn't it?
           | 
           | These sounds are thought to be language
           | 
           | These sounds are not thought to be language
           | 
           | The default position ought to be "we're not sure if it's
           | language or not", but then why are people so surprised when
           | they find out it is?
        
             | andoando wrote:
             | Agreed. Even in physics there are many things we dont know.
             | We dont just say "we cant prove it so its not true and were
             | not going to consider otherwise".
        
             | bullfightonmars wrote:
             | A scientist would assert we have no evidence that they this
             | is a language, but here is what we do know. Here is how it
             | is like a language here is how it is not like a language,
             | this is what we need to measure/prove that it is a
             | language.
        
           | andoando wrote:
           | Making unproven claims is exactly how science is advanced
        
             | bullfightonmars wrote:
             | Defining an experimental and null hypothesis and measurably
             | testing that hypothesis is how science is advanced.
             | 
             | A claim is an assertion of fact. Science doesn't make
             | unproven claims. It tests them.
        
         | Teever wrote:
         | Noone wants to admit that we brutly hunted down and genocided
         | the nearest thing to an alien culture on our planet for some
         | fucking lamp oil.
         | 
         | Just like no one wants to admit that we cause untold suffering
         | to billions of cows and pigs every year in our factory farm
         | matrix.
         | 
         | That's why we don't talk about animal intelligence and language
         | the way that we should.
        
         | Galatians4_16 wrote:
         | Used to be they were just hunted to near extinction, for their
         | oil. It has since been replaced with a more whale-friendly
         | alternative.
         | 
         |  _" There are no solutions ...only tradeoffs."_
         | 
         | --Thomas Sowell
        
         | dotnet00 wrote:
         | The issue is that human language is visibly a tier above just
         | "culturally defined communication". Lots of mammals have some
         | sort of learned 'language' in that they associate sounds or
         | actions with certain meanings, cats and dogs can even be taught
         | to communicate with humans by pressing buttons that say human
         | words.
         | 
         | However it's obvious that human language has much more
         | complexity than just that. Barring undeniable and extraordinary
         | evidence of communication of similar complexity to humans, the
         | claim that cetaceans have language in the human sense remains
         | extraordinary.
        
         | gweinberg wrote:
         | Well, of course some people do want to call it language, but so
         | far it's not clear that it is. We might say it's so complex
         | it's more like a symphony than birdsong, but a symphony doesn't
         | necessarily have anything like semantic content. Given the way
         | whale songs evolve over time, with wanna-be whales imitating
         | the cool whales, it's quite possible that it's pretty much all
         | showing off their talents rather than communicating ideas.
        
         | NeuroCoder wrote:
         | I can't speak for others, but when I've discussed the work of
         | peers or even my own work I try to be very careful about not
         | overstating the results. It's far too easy for a lay audience
         | to take such comparisons and run amok.
         | 
         | As for your latter point, I doubt that most scientists studying
         | animals are the ones against preventative measures in regards
         | to extinction. There are plenty of ethical reasons to prevent
         | extinction of a species without ascribing human
         | characteristics.
        
           | dudinax wrote:
           | What's worse, a lay audience that thinks whales are talking
           | amongst themselves or a lay audience that has no idea whales
           | do anything other than mating songs and sonar clicks?
        
         | hanniabu wrote:
         | There's many that believe cats and dogs have no feelings. Until
         | we can convince people if that, I have no hope of people caring
         | about whales.
        
       | motohagiography wrote:
       | what categories of concepts would they express to each other?
       | maybe an identifier and some conditions like depth, water
       | temperature or pressure, maybe some magnetic or gravitational
       | field direction and locations, tides, topography, mating, food,
       | distress, and then probably some concept of boats and types of
       | boats.
        
       | ralegh wrote:
       | Interspecies communication is a massively underrated field.
       | 
       | We've bridged human cultures in the past, which is easier because
       | humans do similar (ish) things, we can use sight, touch, smell,
       | etc to establish common ground.
       | 
       | We can communicate simple things with pets, though in my
       | experience they learn from body language and intonation,
       | understanding grammar and language feels like a step further.
       | 
       | What's the common ground with whales?
       | 
       | Like how eskimos have 100 words for snow, whales could have
       | thousands of phrases for water, currents, temperature, storms.
       | Fish, migration of different species. A language of relative
       | position needed for pack hunting. They might tell stories about
       | El Nino, earthquakes, tsunamis.
       | 
       | If they have social structure we may share ideas of
       | relationships, friendship, giving (food), owing, sharing,
       | helping, etc.
       | 
       | We might be able to correlate their speech with weather patterns
       | and animal sightings. We could probably start a two way
       | communication, I wonder if us or them would have better forecasts
       | for sea conditions. They could act as a network of hundreds of
       | thousands of sensors.
       | 
       | Sperm whales travel so far, that even without maps they might
       | know the shape of the continents.
       | 
       | Very excited for the future.
        
         | asddubs wrote:
         | From what I understand that 100 words for snow thing isn't
         | really true, it's just that the language uses compound words
         | like german, so it's just that an adjective + noun is rolled
         | into one word (e.g. powder snow would also be pulverschnee in
         | german, but it's really just the word for powder and snow
         | without the space)
        
           | ralegh wrote:
           | Phrases, then.
        
           | pavlov wrote:
           | Ok, so let's say there are ten qualifiers and ten base words
           | for snow. That makes 100 compound words.
           | 
           | It's still substantially more snow-related vocabulary than in
           | German, it seems to me.
        
           | FabHK wrote:
           | More than you ever wanted to know:
           | 
           | The snow words myth: progress at last - https://languagelog.l
           | dc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/...
           | 
           | Bad science reporting again: the Eskimos are back -
           | https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4419
           | 
           | "Words for snow" watch -
           | https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3497
           | 
           | The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax - https://web.archive.org/we
           | b/20181203001555/http://users.utu....
           | 
           | "Eskimo Words for Snow: A Case Study in the Genesis and Decay
           | of an Anthropological Example" -
           | https://www.jstor.org/stable/677570
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
        
           | robocat wrote:
           | A list of 65 English words/phrases for types of snow by a
           | skier: https://skimo.co/words-for-snow but missing a few
           | "spring snow", "Sierra cement".
        
       | DizzyDoo wrote:
       | For anyone wanting a short piece of fiction about human-animal
       | communication development, I enjoyed this one (or part one of
       | one) from Lars Doucet: https://www.fortressofdoors.com/we-trade-
       | with-ants-a-short-s...
        
         | mrec wrote:
         | For a blast from the past, Ursula Le Guin's _The Author of the
         | Acacia Seeds_ is also fun:
         | 
         | https://xenoflesh.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/u...
         | 
         | (Note: PDF)
        
       | frellus wrote:
       | "Gracie is pregnant"
        
       | pegasus wrote:
       | No mention of birdsong in this article leaves me hanging. Surely
       | birdsong has got to be much more studied, and must contain lots
       | of complexity ripe to be plumbed for hidden meaning.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-05-12 23:00 UTC)