Bots and Simulations > Tips and Tricks

NO MORE OVERFLOW

<< < (2/7) > >>

PurpleYouko:
Yup
I was right.

Completely bloody Barking mad!  :wacko:

Numsgil:
It's my opinion that bots (the little circle things, not the person) shouldn't be able to mess with the mutation rates anyway.  A smart bot will just evolve to keep them as low as possible.  Probably anyway.  I'd recommend keeping it at 0.

Botsareus:
Thats not true num, a smart bot will not evolve to have no mutation rates, I DONT WANT THE BOTS TO BE ABLE TO SET IT TO ZERO AT ALL. WHY? SIMPLE NUM, I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MUTATION MAKES THINGS BETTER!!!!!! , IT DOES NOT DESTROY THINGS NUM, CORRECT MUTATION WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER NUM!!!!!
IF ONLY I HAD MY OLD FILES I WOULD PROVE IT TO YOU NUM, SO SAD THAT I DONT HAVE MY OLD FILES.


--- Quote ---. A smart bot will just evolve to keep them as low as possible.
--- End quote ---

why would you say somthing like that? DB is currently not a good example of a mutation sim Num... Don't base everything on what you seen in DB.

Numsgil:
While the cumulative effect of mutations over many, many generations generally produces better results than the precursor, any SINGLE bot would be wise to not allow mutations.

Why is that?

Imagine this:
You have a kid.  It's healthy and normal.  I tell you that there's a 99.9% chance that what I'm about to do will kill it, but there's a .1% chance that it will raise its IQ by 3 points.  Would you do it?

Now imagine I did that to every kid in the world.  Sure there'd only be a few million people left, but they'd all be smarter.  Right.  Still not a good move.

Now imagine I did it randomly to every thousandth kid that was born over the course of all human history.  The parents have no choice.  It doesn't adversely effect the entire human population, and it doesn't really effect most kids.  Some kids though will gain that 3 points of IQ.  Over time (say millions of years) you'd expect to see a massive increase in the intelligence of humans.

Mutations are like that.  Most, especially for smaller bots, are destructive.  You'd be a fool to let your kids have any chance at all of mutating.  You obviously were successful enough to survive.  What's wrong with your own genes?

But a species would be very wise to let itself mutate.  Slowly, ever so slowly, of course.  It's a funny dichotomy.  The same problem exists with cooperative bacteria.  Why do some cooperate to help others when it means their death?  From their point of view it means they can't pass on their genes.  Cheaters could develop that take advantage of them.

From the species' point of view it makes sense though.  If two together are stornger than two appart, you want them to work like that.

That's what I mean.  Remember, evolution, according to modern biologists, only works from the individual's point of view, sicne it is individuals that must compete and reproduce.

Carlo:
Sorry, Nums, I can't understand your point. At the end of your post you say "evolution, only works from the individul's point of view". And that's right. So, how can you say that the interest of single robots should be to keep their mutation rates at 0, because mutation is in the species' interest?
If evolution works from the individual's point of view, and species evolve, this must be because mutating is in the individual's interest.
View it this way. Many biologists even say that evolution works from the gene point of view, that is mutation is in the interest of the genes, not even the individuals. Suppose you have a robot with n genes, and one of those genes is able to specify the global mutation rates for that robot. That gene should be more likely to spread if it triggers little enough mutations to preserve the dna functionality, but, at the same time, it has to trigger some because this increase its probability to spread in an environment subject to slow changes.
Anyway, I did some experiments with DarwinBots some time ago. I took some kind of rather primitive robot (like C. Circumgirans, or so) and cloned it (loaded it two times in the same simulation), creating two teams. One of them had a zero mutation rate, and the other one a low mutation rate, greater than zero. Then a ran a few simulations, and - surprise!- usually the team with a non-zero mutation rate won the sim. Well, now you have teams and auto reloading of sims with stats, so you can make some more accurate study about it. Who wants to try?

Bye, C.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page