General > Off Topic

My simulation: Evolving social bots

(1/2) > >>

meph:

Hello, I just thought some people here would be interested in seeing a simulation that I put together a while ago on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvEywP8t12I



I'm not too familiar with darwin bots but there are some differences that I picked up on right away.
I guess the biggest one is that I do not use a coding-based DNA. Instead, my DNA specifies the structure, connectivity, and parameters of the perceptron network. My brains are therefore automatically robust to small mutations because of the invariance in the sigmoidal activation function.
However, compared to Darwinbots I think I am working on a much lower level and can probably accomplish less elaborate tasks per parameter.

The sensory modalities are also a little different: my bots can "smell density of bots" and "hear speed of bots", and also sense the colors, but on a little lower resolution.

Oh and I don't have pretty graphs

I should check out darwin bots sometime
Cheers,
meph

Numsgil:
Looks pretty cool   Have you gotten anything like a stable ecosystem going?  (eg: predators and prey following a sinusoidal graph).  That's always been the hardest part in Darwinbots (it's been done, it just requires a lot of tweaking to get the initial parameters set up right).

meph:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Looks pretty cool   Have you gotten anything like a stable ecosystem going?  (eg: predators and prey following a sinusoidal graph).  That's always been the hardest part in Darwinbots (it's been done, it just requires a lot of tweaking to get the initial parameters set up right).
--- End quote ---

Hi: well that's just the thing, I can't make those plots because I don't have this distinction. These bots just do their thing (whatever that is), and you can only qualitatively decide, sometime. Many times it is clear, but many times they are in this grey area in between where they are gatherers but then flip randomly and attack something.

If Darwinbots does have this clear distinction where every bot must be one or the other, then I would consider that as an instance of where you are putting in too much structure. You are baking the solution in, not seeing it emerge... which takes some fun out of it for me

ashton15:
Nay, darwinbots definitely isn't black&white at all, I personally find though that genrally most bots have no need for specializing, hopefully in the upcoming version of darwinbots more emphasis will be placed on speciality, the idea is to encourage multi-cellular creatures though hopefully it will also help provide abit more structure to the ecosystem. Not to much though

peterb:
WOW THATS AWESOME !!!  


that video is amazing, and you solved the problem of how to train a neural net in such environments i think thats.. pretty amazing. un-trained NN
Oh i love to see this combined with darwinbots, where bots can evolve in shapes (multibots)
I've been thinking on how to create something like it, the darwin bot code is different currently small 'genes' with functions (often very complex functions)
But they are of human design. (with exception of zero bot leagus)  (both options would be nice.. human bots and NN bots)

Would be nice if DNA would rather describe structure (cell types, propulsion, eye, shell,venom..) and a neural AI would be the brain.
Even the structure of the brain, could be maybe described by DNA  (so you get darwin rules combined with neural brains).
The same DNA would connect structure and the input out to this structure (connect between eye and propulsion)
In an environment much like the current DB

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page