[HN Gopher] Ants vs. Humans: Putting Group Smarts to the Test
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ants vs. Humans: Putting Group Smarts to the Test
        
       Author : thunderbong
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2024-12-25 13:58 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il)
 (TXT) w3m dump (wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il)
        
       | yuvalr1 wrote:
       | The website took some time to load. Here is a link to the video
       | in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHpu7ngQxwE&t=39s
       | 
       | The conclusions - humans work best by themselves and the quality
       | decreases as the number of people increases. For ants it's the
       | opposite. Quite interesting!
        
         | yuvalr1 wrote:
         | And here is the actual paper (linked from the article as well):
         | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2414274121
        
         | yamrzou wrote:
         | I remember reading somehwere about the optimal size for human
         | groups to be efficient, but I can't recall the source. If
         | anyone has any pointers, I'd appreciate it!
        
       | suryajena wrote:
       | > _" Forming groups did not expand the cognitive abilities of
       | humans. The famous 'wisdom of the crowd' that's become so popular
       | in the age of social networks didn't come to the fore in our
       | experiments"_
       | 
       | If it were true wouldn't all democratic societies be in danger.
       | Our whole society is based off the wisdom of the crowds.
        
         | aithrowawaycomm wrote:
         | That seems to be university PR doing its "magic." The actual
         | study is much more interesting: the humans weren't allowed to
         | speak to each other, and pheromones wouldn't help the ants
         | solve the problem, so both groups were communicating through
         | haptic feedback. Ants do this naturally and demonstrated swarm
         | intelligence behavior by "going with the flow", but the humans
         | kept working at cross purposes by trying to implement a
         | complete solution without coordinating the details.
         | 
         | I agree with the overall conclusion, even if it's phrased
         | misleadingly: human collective intelligence is primarily about
         | individual intelligences accessing group knowledge rather than
         | groups working together to tackle complex problems beyond
         | individual comprehension. Ants are not individually capable of
         | understanding the piano-mover problem at a basic level;
         | research administrators are generally capable of understanding
         | the work of individual researchers, they just don't have the
         | time to digest all the details.
        
         | PittleyDunkin wrote:
         | > If it were true wouldn't all democratic societies be in
         | danger.
         | 
         | Democracy is more or less in a permanent state of crisis. This
         | has been discussed thoroughly since the time of Athens, and
         | certainly Rome. The late days of the republic were
         | characterized by squabbling over the specifics of who got to
         | lobby voters, how they were allowed to, and where they were
         | allowed to. For instance they have laws on the books dictating
         | the physical structure of the buildings that people voted in to
         | ensure that the rich couldn't basically station people in the
         | halls leading to the ballots to purchase votes or physically
         | intimidate voters. This is also reflected in the sudden
         | populist turns of eg the Gracchi brothers and Caesar himself.
         | 
         | It's also true of the American republic. Self-conception of us
         | as an egalitarian democracy is still around at best a century
         | old, and more accurately around sixty years old. And we remain
         | _extremely_ far from being an obviously healthy democracy. Of
         | course, the state has vacillated between actions you could
         | _argue_ are wise and those that are clearly _not_ , before and
         | after these divides.
         | 
         | I really would be very cautious at viewing democracies as
         | reflecting of "wisdom". We often can (and often do) come to
         | consensus that is extremely ill-advised from the perspective of
         | the needs of the populace. Democracy is more or less
         | permanently perched on the tension between the will and needs
         | of the constituents which are often at blatant odds with each
         | other. There's a reason why the Philosopher King has held such
         | a cultural weight through the millennia. At best democracy is a
         | best-faith effort to approximate wisdom through consensus--
         | sometimes with better faith than other times.
        
           | phyzix5761 wrote:
           | Polybius's Anacyclosis
        
         | vouaobrasil wrote:
         | > If it were true wouldn't all democratic societies be in
         | danger.
         | 
         | All democratic societies _are_ in danger -- because the wisdom
         | of the crowd does _not_ have the capability to handle scenarios
         | where the crowd has sufficiently great power.
        
         | notduncansmith wrote:
         | Given the coordination/cooperation aspect of the problem, this
         | isn't really the "wisdom of the crowd" as I've always
         | understood it.
         | 
         | Something like estimating the number of beans in a jar is a
         | good fit, since there is only one layer of perception to agree
         | on and no coordination required.
         | 
         | This experiment as described seems closer to "design by
         | committee" with (predictably) similar results.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-12-25 23:00 UTC)