[HN Gopher] Artificial LIfe ENvironment (ALIEN) is an artificial...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Artificial LIfe ENvironment (ALIEN) is an artificial life
       simulation tool
        
       Author : Bluestein
       Score  : 105 points
       Date   : 2024-07-03 16:33 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (alien-project.gitbook.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (alien-project.gitbook.io)
        
       | bun_terminator wrote:
       | This is their youtube page, which might be a better demonstration
       | of what this _actually_ is: https://www.youtube.com/@alien-
       | project
        
         | emmanueloga_ wrote:
         | Looks amazing in motion! Also, here's the homepage. [1]
         | 
         | --
         | 
         | 1: https://alien-project.org/
        
           | Bluestein wrote:
           | With video names such as "Invasion of Paradise" who can
           | resist? :)
        
           | Bluestein wrote:
           | It's very polished:
           | 
           | "ALIEN is an artificial life simulation program that runs on
           | a GPU. Its simulation code is written entirely in CUDA and
           | highly optimized for large-scale real-time simulations of
           | millions of bodies and particles (see the links for more
           | information). This channels features real-time captures of
           | simulations and technical demonstrations of the latest
           | version."
        
         | Bluestein wrote:
         | PS. Also, nota bene, as noted in the docs:
         | 
         | "Warning: This documentation is out of date and does not
         | describe the behavior of the latest major version 4, which
         | implements a new model. An up-to-date documentation can be
         | found in the program help."
        
       | tempodox wrote:
       | Seems to be Nvidia only. Too bad.
        
         | Bluestein wrote:
         | (They ain't worth 3T for no reason, unfortunately :)
        
       | dunefox wrote:
       | I love projects such as this. Although I don't know how
       | successful they're in actually getting new insights - artificial
       | life was the reason I wanted to study informatics.
        
         | Bluestein wrote:
         | I can totally see that. Emergence, emergent phenomena are
         | fascinating.-
         | 
         | (I am convinced that at some obscure intersection of emergence,
         | network effects and machine learning, there lurk answers to
         | many, fundamental questions ...
        
           | WanderPanda wrote:
           | Do you mean emergence and network effects IN machine
           | learning? Otherwise I would be very curious how machine
           | learning fits that list in your view
        
             | Bluestein wrote:
             | Thanks for making me think a bit deeper :)
             | 
             | After some review, no, I do not think I would _alone_ use
             | "in" in somehow, I guess, circunscribing the probable,
             | positive effects that I meant of emergence and network
             | effects to ML.-
             | 
             | In a certain sense, I think there's something
             | "fundamental", a primitive, to ML and Transformers and such
             | "big-data" and information techniques such as they are
             | being applied to AI, that puts them up there with emergent
             | phenomena and network effects in terms of constituting (or
             | manifesting, or following, or embodying ....) some very
             | fundamental principles.-
             | 
             | So, in a sense, I am more and more leaning towards thinking
             | that (particularly when applied to AI and the search for
             | AGI) "primitives" such as emergence (particularly) are
             | somehow to be brought to bear ...
             | 
             | PS. As an illustration, look into JEPA and other more
             | "holistic" approaches to simulating or achieving the "I" in
             | AI. Approaches that are made up of very complex systems
             | interacting with each other (some of which _are_
             | Transformers, or verbal) but not entirely ...
             | 
             | Now, coming back to the "in", above ...
             | 
             | ... could emergence and network effects have use _in_ ML
             | itself (as in, integrated or taken advantage of in these
             | systems) and the answer would _also_ be yes, I think.-
             | 
             | That is to say, emergence, network effects, ML ...
             | consciousness perhaps, and other "fundamentals" might
             | constitute - both as parts of larger solutions and
             | incorporated within each other - useful building blocks ...
             | 
             | Along these lines, there are some interesting
             | "intersections" that I am exploring:
             | 
             | - Bio electric signaling. Turns out neurons are great, but
             | they are not the end-all of biological electrical signaling
             | 
             | - Proprioception in ML, AI (!), and, of course _robotics_.
             | There 's something about having a body or being "embodied"
             | that has some bearing here I am sure ...
             | 
             | - JEPA (I and V) an other approaches that are hitting the
             | problem from a more "holistic"/complex approach, trying to
             | imitate or use "higher order" systems working together
             | 
             | We do live in interesting times :) (And, I do not mean this
             | in the overloaded sense of the Chinese saying to one's
             | enemies ...)
        
         | RaftPeople wrote:
         | I built an a-life system with basic creatures with senses,
         | motion, consumption of food, and a neural net brain.
         | 
         | Brains started random, each generation had a fixed life span,
         | then next generation was created from previous with varying
         | levels of evolution (top 10% best creatures left un-changed,
         | next 10% tweaked a little, next 10% tweaked more...last 20%
         | completely re-created randomly).
         | 
         | I wanted to see some level of advanced control evolve, like a
         | creature hiding behind an object waiting for it's prey (other
         | creature). I didn't see anything remotely close to something
         | like that, but I did see was some level of success evolve.
         | Meaning some creatures had brains that allowed them to optimize
         | finding food and avoiding getting eaten by other creatures,
         | even if they were clearly using just simple strategies that
         | ended up being effective, like frequently moving in a large
         | circular motion to find food.
         | 
         | This is the question the whole thing left me with:
         | 
         | What is required to push this evolution to create the types of
         | advanced control (intelligence?) that I was hoping for?
         | 
         | Is there a level of complexity in the environment that is a
         | base requirement? Meaning if the environment is too simple,
         | then there is no opportunity to evolve the various building
         | blocks that would all come together to produce advanced control
         | because simpler strategies would always outperform in the short
         | term?
         | 
         | What were the conditions in our environment that pushed or
         | allowed crows to become smart?
         | 
         | Maybe, if the environment has enough complexity, then you can
         | have many more species occupying their own little niche, which
         | increases the odds of acquiring some mental attribute.
         | 
         | Or maybe there is some very specific set of conditions within a
         | species niche that opens the door for these advanced mental
         | attributes to be valuable.
        
           | Bluestein wrote:
           | > Is there a level of complexity in the environment that is a
           | base requirement?
           | 
           | I think you are unto something here. Either that or a
           | necessary minimum of sensory/processing capacity to "take
           | in"/parse/drawn information from the environment, which
           | amounts to the same (you end up with a certain amount of
           | environmental complexity that you can benefit from, as a
           | "ceiling" ...
        
           | _wire_ wrote:
           | Consider that the lower orders of integration of life are
           | energetic molecular arrangements, then genetically controlled
           | factories which make which make up the components of cells
           | that in turn give rise to cellular replication, then cellular
           | arrangements and multicellular organisms.
           | 
           | The creatures you are hoping to simulate which seem to be at
           | the level of abstraction of a nematode, IOW a model of a very
           | simple body with a brain of a few hundred neurons, operate in
           | environments so diffuse and rarified that superficially they
           | don't seem striking behaviorally, even as they do the stuff
           | you expect simple animals to do. A casual onlooker will not
           | be impressed by the richness of the world of the nematode. So
           | one challenge is you could be on the right track but find
           | appropriate results boring.
           | 
           | But it may be that the best you can do with a simulation is
           | make arrangements seem interesting, because there may be an
           | entropic blockade to stimulating life: life may be so
           | efficient in its manifestation of degrees of abstractions,
           | interactions, fabrication, layering, and interdependencies--
           | its complexity-- that organization of models using electronic
           | computation devices can't get within many orders of magnitude
           | of life's dynamical density and therefore simulation of life
           | is inherently impractical. IOW you can get from life to
           | computers, but entropy prevents getting from computers to
           | life.
           | 
           | In life, is there any clear distinction between machine and
           | code? Genomics suggests there might be, but so far fiddling
           | with genomes is well known only for edits of taxonomically
           | superficial traits. Has anyone shown edits that give rise to
           | a new subspecies-- much less a new genus? Idk... but it
           | wouldn't surprise me to find the answer is be no, and that
           | epigenetic factors might inhibit any approach to editing new
           | lifeforms into existence.
           | 
           | Is life is fundamentally emergent, without possibility of
           | construction? I see a definitional hazard; that we may lack
           | the language or cognitive capacity to deal with life's
           | dynamics. These may be off limits. Or maybe not?
        
             | Bluestein wrote:
             | > there may be an entropic blockade to stimulating life:
             | 
             | Interesting.-
             | 
             | PS. Taking this further, there might be a similar
             | "blockade" to simulating intelligence. Or (definitely)
             | consciousness ...
        
       | smusamashah wrote:
       | Is there any similar life simulation system which shows
       | replication evolving naturally? I remember looking into this
       | project once and replication is one of the already built-in
       | properties.
        
         | munchler wrote:
         | Replication is a prerequisite for evolution, not a product of
         | evolution. If you're interested in how replication first arose,
         | you want to study abiogenesis, not evolution. The tricky thing
         | about abiogenesis, though, is that it only has to happen once,
         | which makes it difficult to study/model scientifically.
        
           | Bluestein wrote:
           | > The tricky thing about abiogenesis, though, is that it only
           | has to happen once, which makes it difficult to study/model
           | scientifically.
           | 
           | Excuse my ignorance ...
           | 
           | ... difficult because - I assume - it only having to happen
           | once leaves you with little examples of it happening to
           | study?
        
             | munchler wrote:
             | Yes, it didn't leave any evidence behind, other than life
             | itself, and it could have been essentially a fluke event.
        
               | Bluestein wrote:
               | Thanks for taking the time.-
        
           | dudinax wrote:
           | You're implying there was a moment where there was nothing
           | replicating, then there was a self replicator and life took
           | off.
           | 
           | That's not logically required, nor does it line up with
           | reality. The replicators that live today are not self-
           | replicators. DNA can't replicate itself and the chemicals
           | that replicate DNA cannot replicate themselves. It's a
           | complex soup that collectively replicates.
           | 
           | It's highly likely that the "first replicator" from which we
           | are all descended was surrounded by and descended from other
           | entities which we'd be hard pressed to prove weren't
           | replicators if we had the chance to study them, but
           | definitely evolved in some way.
        
             | munchler wrote:
             | I agree that abiogenesis probably required a long buildup
             | to create the necessary conditions, but I think there's
             | still a clear dividing line between that first self-
             | replicator and whatever preceded it. I don't see how you
             | could argue that the predecessors were capable of
             | replication before that point - it's a logical
             | contradiction.
             | 
             | FWIW, I think most people studying this topic suspect that
             | something like RNA (not DNA) was actually the original
             | self-replicator.
        
         | bryan0 wrote:
         | You might be interested in this paper which was talked about on
         | HN last week:
         | 
         | "Computational Life: How Well-formed, Self-replicating Programs
         | Emerge from Simple Interaction"
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820022
        
           | smusamashah wrote:
           | Thanks. They have linked a video showing this [0] and also
           | ascii recording of the program showing self replicator [1].
           | This is very helpful. It means at some point we will have
           | artificial life simulations which do evolve replication
           | naturally.
           | 
           | https://youtu.be/eOHGBuZCswA
           | 
           | https://asciinema.org/a/nXW8NFxiUtHiNtteJwXAXraFa
        
       | eggy wrote:
       | I still have the two Artificial Life volumes from the Santa Fe
       | Institiute proceedings from 1989. Alien Life looks like you could
       | easily get lost in another world with this simulation. I remember
       | awaiting the game Spore with music by Brian Eno was being created
       | with lots of pre-release press in 2007 / 2008. A lot of cross-
       | disciplined talents were hovering around this field back then and
       | emergent behavior was diffusing into all topics of conversation.
       | Good times.
        
         | Bluestein wrote:
         | > Alien Life looks like you could easily get lost in another
         | world with this simulation. I remember awaiting the game Spore
         | ...
         | 
         | I remember the (deserved) hype back then ...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-07-07 23:00 UTC)