Bots and Simulations > DNA - General

darwinbots evolution

(1/2) > >>

peterb:
well I made some bots several in fact and let them run trough the program.
Bots changed a lot by dna copy errors, and still kept reproducing eating eachother etc.
Basicly that seams to be it, wel as far as I see it, its fun dough you get to wonder is more going on or could more be going on?.
I designed a one gene Bot, called thermite 1G; even if I would understand genetic reproduction trough darwin bots.
There isn't much to evolve if you had only one gene..

Darwinbots evolution or evolution in general might not have a goal or purpose, just some lucky winners.
And even the lucky reproducing winners in general might not be the ultimate best winners.
Even the human race doenst endup like einsteins or pamela andersons, or bruce lee's or atists like Bjork.
They are just a few of the huge group of a species. Dough the group as a whole adapts pretty well against nature or culture.
We somehow survive wars floods epidemics, and we redisign our environments to live (most of the dutch live below sea level)
We even behave like swarms who's knowledge is expanding as a groupd, dough not as a individual. So teams outsmart individuals.

Comparing darwin bots to to other games and AI software I began to wonder.
Some software uses genetic algorythms to improve for example airplane wing designs.
Basicly such software uses trial and error reproducing to create the best sysvars describing a wing.
Using the environment paramaters of air and a certain required lifting force and somthing that can describe shape.
In other games you can grow yourself a bigger representations of your gunship by buying items etc. etc.
And in nature we see creatures creating wings.

So then I wondered, besides de copy errors in DNA, what environment does DarwinBots try to survive?
Well ofcourse that is other bots and a happy meal called algey.
But there isnt much else to adapt too, so as a result the copy errors are the main driving force, in this evolution here.
Altough you can disable that, but somehow you hope you get some kind of Bjork Einstein Bot or whatever...
Sadly however I never seam to be able to find the DarwinBot Bjorks.
Once in a while I see some powerfull big berta's stand out.
But they dont become a new species who outsmart the others.
Rather copy errors make them disapear or a more simple creatures each their food away.
I dont see big bertha's with nicer code, or better algorythms as far as I can judge.

Like a game of Spore or Creatures, there is not much learning improving going on about the outside world.
It seams to be more a battle of programs (and a verry intresting one, dont get me wrong about that).
But there is not much adapting against an outside world.
There is not much teaming to battle the outside world, like making a dyke's against flooding.
Or a group of dolphins who got an swarming idea and learned a way to catch fich together, and learned an optimal way of how to do that.
Lets call that behaviours, perhaps verry andvanced blocks of genes with predefined behaviours;

What I wonder is, might a more  complexer environment for DarwinBots. Result in bots, who somehow might better learn from their environment .
Might the world be to simple, in DarwinBots for its Bots?. I'm not thinking or have at the moment ideas to make it more complex, its just a tought.
Simple organisms can swarm easily never dye neither do they improve there is just a x percent who keeps a live each cycle, and Y new ones get born and Z dye.
What if there was some kind of external force or so they would have to tackle, or make advancement off to evolve.
Neither I'm that deep into programing, but I wonder would bots improve more/better if the landscape where more complex ?
If there where more external factors of some kind in the environment the bot's had to deal with.


?

bacillus:
The problem is that the DNA of darwin bots is crippling for intelligent the way it is at the moment; AFAIK, nobody has made a super-intelligent bot yet, and if we can't hand-author a bot that good (come on, etch and fruitflies), what makes you think evolution can? Besides, the fact that it is simulating single-celled organsims, with ties that are incredibly inefficient at communicating, brought on by the necessity of not overpowering ties as a kill weapon, are the best way to make a competent intelligent species, although ironically not being capable of significant intelligence at all.

Peter:
I takes time a lot of time to evolve a extremely smart bot from a zerobot if able at all.

I gues it is hard to evolve a man-made bot. Often evolution in DB breaks everything down that isn't needed right away. Then the real evolution begins an the bots never get back to the level of the original fighterbot. Having lost everything that was usefull in a fight.

Welwordion:
You are right that Darwinbots although named otherwise is not really great on the aspect of evolution.
That has several reasons:

I think the basic thought was to create selection pressure mainly trough competition with other bots, but this means that bots mainly evolve to defend and attack better and more efficiently or to stop fighting there is not much outside of that to enforce selection pressure if you do not choose really special environmentally conditions.

Although over time option after option was added, this only increases the size of the solutionspace making it harder for evolution to work as the bots have to find predefined syntaxes, prethought solutions and thats pretty hard , as was said darwinbots Dna is nolt reall designed for easy evolution.
But more so, when a clever designer can come up with the possibilities that can be used, although he might have problems implementing them(having mostly the same problems as bots with finding the exact syntax, correct solutions) how do we expect a bot to surprise us in finding something new?

Complex behavior is difficult and well complex, that makes its hard to develop, to maintain and optimize in most cass it just to costly in terms of efficiency and performance to have a chance to compete.

The current mutation structure is just dumb, I mean sometimes you need to have almost the exact gene for all 9 eyes and so you write 9 genes or line of code then you need 9 mutations to do that.(If you had some dna command  that started a loop that repeats 9 times  changing a certain dna cxommand with 0 add, 1 add 2 add etc this could be done in a way one mutation would be enough), sometimes mutation would need to mainly mutate numbers or leave certain parts of the code rather unharmed while mutating others more but currently mutation works totally random.

Endy:
I have to disagree, DB is one of the better Alife simulators out there. That being said, I'm not saying it's the best it could be either since its nearly impossible to interpret the results. I would like to see a window with just the locations w/sysvar names, stored to that cycle and the values stored. Think that would go a long ways to helping us understand what's going on internally.

Most of the evolved dna may not make sense from a human point of view, but is elegant once its understood. The bots making better use of the !~= condition than we can is a good example, its both less susceptible to mutations and more gradual than the other conditions.

I've seen zerobots evolve fairly advanced stuff. I think their main problem is that they just don't have as good of a starting point in terms of novel dna. It takes a considerable amount of time just to get something like *.eye5 and even longer for them to find a use for it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page