The Future For Artificial Life

[hoopa 0]

Hi all,I was watching a documentary last night called Human 2.0. The doco revolved around the advancements in artificial intelligence, and the possible impacts that it might have on our lives. What do people think about the idea of humans creating 'artificial' life, is it actually possible, when will it happen, and what impacts that it might actually have on us?I personally think that we will one day succeed in creating an 'artificial' being. I say 'artificial' because what life is is still personally up for debate. The program talked about some people predicting this might happen as early as 2029, but if history has told us anything abot wild futuristic dreasm, it will more likely be hundreds of years in the making. As the name of the doco suggests (and I think some of the doco backed it up), that some people consider AI to be the next evolutionary step for human beings. I think this is partially correct. I been called negative before, but again I think we should refer to history again as after all we are the only species of humans left!! I think that when all is said and done we will be relegated to insignificance, and perhaps non-existence. From the comments being made around quantum computing, and the advances in AI, the results are very interesting and possibly very concerning at the same time.The thing I find ironic about the whole situation is that humans are possibly approaching a level of knowledge that we have never seen before, but at the same time the total outcome might not be totally 'positive' for us a whole.Any thoughts??Cheers,Hoopa

[Mordent 0]

Artificial life is certainly a very different idea than artificial intelligence. AI is something that a vast majority of people are vaguely understanding of: some kind of supercomputer that is capable of making decisions of its own accord and learning as it does so. The act of creating life, however, is certainly trickier. From wikipedia, I've rummaged up a definition of what life is:

There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.[5][6]
Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

While not fully agreed on, working on the list above to make some form of artificially created being have 'life' we can speculate on what we need to look for. Clearly an artificial intelligence would be useful in the extreme, as that would deal with the "response to stimuli" criteria, and if initially given a method of performing growth and adaptation (perhaps simply a toolset that it could manipulate and therefore allow it to make changes to itself? This would also allow reproduction to take place, as it could physically create new beings) with a way of taking in metals and other materials (for mass) and fuel (for energy) and adapting it to its needs then surely the AI becomes the most challenging part? The homeostasis would be dealt with by cooling fans (or liquid coolant) until it comes up with something better, the organisation easy enough to accomplish with having separate parts to perform separate tasks. Metabolism I've already mentioned, as with growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction.

Now we just need to come up with an AI that's smart enough to go with it.

[hoopa 0]

This is true the distinction between the two is very necessary, but they are inevitably tied together as well.I liked your examples of how we might mechanically perform the same functions as those described in the definition of life, but I actually think AI would be the more difficult of the two. Don't ever underestimate the complexity of that pile of goo in your head. As you say, it is the AI we need to go along with it. I can make all those things happen with machines, but it is my brain doing all the work. I find it interesting that it may be possible to create such an AI that could solely be based in a mechanical world, but that it could only come into existence because of another intelligent being. I diverge, but perhaps it was once possible that we came into being because of another intelligent being? As I said I diverge, and I don't want to do any 'god' chasing today, but it is an interesting thought.I categorise life into two groups, aware and non-aware. Life takes the form of plants and animals, but humans put themselves into an unique category that has self awareness. Niether is trivial to think about, but I'm sure that we'll figure out non-aware AI long before we reach self awareness.cheers,Hoopa

[Mordent 0]

This is true the distinction between the two is very necessary, but they are inevitably tied together as well.

 

I liked your examples of how we might mechanically perform the same functions as those described in the definition of life, but I actually think AI would be the more difficult of the two. Don't ever underestimate the complexity of that pile of goo in your head. As you say, it is the AI we need to go along with it. I can make all those things happen with machines, but it is my brain doing all the work.

 

I find it interesting that it may be possible to create such an AI that could solely be based in a mechanical world, but that it could only come into existence because of another intelligent being. I diverge, but perhaps it was once possible that we came into being because of another intelligent being? As I said I diverge, and I don't want to do any 'god' chasing today, but it is an interesting thought.

 

I categorise life into two groups, aware and non-aware. Life takes the form of plants and animals, but humans put themselves into an unique category that has self awareness. Niether is trivial to think about, but I'm sure that we'll figure out non-aware AI long before we reach self awareness.

 

cheers,

Hoopa

No doubt that the very crux of creating artificial life would be creating artificial intelligence. By the very name, artificial life has to be created by another entity. How the first lifeform came in to being is a huge debate in itself, but if we can the idea of creating a purely mechanical being that is, in itself, able to grow, develop and replicate then things would become very interesting indeed. For example, if we assume that the AI is developed in such a way that it is capable of making simple choices between its next action based on past events, it's 'knowledge' and multitude of other factors, evolution would most likely occur from the different "starting" points of each individual robot.

 

Effectively, to create artificial life we need an initial mechanical body capable of manipulating itself and the environment (as well as moving), but more importantly the initial intelligence to go with it, which strikes me as far harder to develop.

 

I think another, simpler way of looking at the idea is that artificial life is artificial intelligence with an artificial body.