The Swarmbots Are Coming 176
Roland Piquepaille writes "For its latest issue, Wired Magazine asked several experts to tell us how the convergence between technology and biology was transforming their respective fields, from transportation to art, and even redefining life as we know it. In this special report, Living Machines, you'll discover that the nonliving world is very much alive. This summary is focused on one of the seven articles, which talks about ant algorithms and swarmbots. "Typically, a swarm bot is a collection of simple robots (s-bots) that self-organize according to algorithms inspired by the bridge-building and task-allocation activities of ants." And ant algorithms are used today to solve human problems especially in distribution and logistics."
Godel, Escher, and Bach (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet, Linux, Groklaw!
Ant people!
Re:yeah yeah .... (Score:1, Insightful)
Neo made it high enough to see blue sky and sun.
why can't the stupiud bots just build a stupid tower up a few thousand feet with a stupid microwave reciever, and launch a stupid satellite to collect solar power and beam it by mircowave to the tower which then transmists it by cable to the ground? Huh? Stupid machines.
Wired != Strong Prediction Success (Score:4, Insightful)
This reached its peak with the "Push" edition of the magazine, which you will no doubt remember if you were a subscriber/reader at the time. The technology never really made that much sense, certanly not in the "world-changing" ways they were talking about at the time. Add in the "new economy", those Cue-Cat scanners and the (again) world changing supposed effects of satellite phones (just to name a few off the top of my head) and Wired has quickly become the equivalent of the Sports Illustrated cover curse.
Woe to any futurologist or technologist that should find themselves prognosticating within the pages of Wired!
"PREY"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Crichton is one of those. As is Dan Brown, Robin Cook, Tom Clancy...etc etc.
Go check out "Prey," and it will introduce you to this technology in a "fun way," and even introduce you to the inherent risks and problems we face as these technologies emerge.
with all of these tech/spec guides for work, it's nice to dumb it down with a novel every week or so! What I like to do is read one, then research the techonologies mentioned, and try to determine if they are Sci-Fi, or the real deal. Reading them is kinda like brainstorming, and gives me plenty of random knowledge ideas for me to go Google-crazy with!
try it sometime...
Re:Living? Hardly. (Score:4, Insightful)
This comment you made just proves that you've never really thought of the question.
The question is: what defines something as alive or inert? the boundary has always been fuzzy, and endless philosophical debates on the subject have been raging for centuries and still do to this day, albeit with a little more material to try to answer it.
The short of it is: the conventional wisdom would be to define something alive as (1) performing some function, however trivial (i.e. transforming something into something else) and (2) being able to reproduce itself (from full sexual reproduction down to simple mitosis). The problem with that definition is that virii wouldn't count as being alive (they don't reproduce or perform anything without having invaded a host), and virii are usually considered the smallest thing that can be said alive.
If you extend the definition to encompass biological virii, you start defining computer ones as alive too. They, on the other hand, are usually considered "inert" (well, not alive).
etc etc...
So you see, it's not as easy as you might think... I invite you to do research on the subject before posting inflamatory comments.
Re:It goes to show you (Score:5, Insightful)
I have often felt that the individualistic drive, and in turn the resulting competition, conflicts, and all other associated factors have been one of the reasons why we (the human race) have been able to innovate in so many various fields at almost exponential rates.
When you have a mass of like minded, same goal-oriented individuals, the goal of outdoing someone working on the same area for personal recognition, or other persona gains (monetary) is truly a motivator that trumps cooperation without vision.
Good examples are things like the arms races, competing tech companies, etc, etc. These types of conflict or competition-oriented environments almost demand that innovation, invention, and extremely rapid creative thinking and development occur in order to stay in the running or at the top. Plus the motivation that someone else is always trying to take your place once you are "the best" helps keep people sharp as well.
I think a society of mindless drones would not have been much more advanced that we were whenever our species first started forming communities...some things would have developed over time, but I doubt at the pace that we have and continue to see today.
I said it before... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most successful and well known drugs in the world is Viagra.
Sex sells everything, and it will sell robots.
Hell, I'd probably buy one, but I expect it to make breakfast in the morning. Preferably pancakes. Warm, fluffy pancakes. Mmmm... pancakes.
Weather is about chemistry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, weather develops from the mixing of oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and other... molecules
What? Weather is all about energy, and is powered by the sun. Highs and lows are all about temperature, not the balance of elements. Mixing of elements has little to do with weather.
Sheesh!
D
Re:Why do ants get all the press? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Living? Hardly. (Score:3, Insightful)
And I say this having done research in Artificial Life (rightfully called the world's first and only fact-free science) and having thought about the question plenty. I personally believe in the thermodynamic and information theoretic theories of life, which puts me on the "algorithms are alive" side. It still pisses me off plenty to hear popular "science" articles in Wired spout off about it; it's the 60's AI fiasco all over again (except that today, the taboo you break by calling them bullshit is "thou shalt not attack optimism when hip self-referential concepts are involved" whereas before the taboo was probably "thou shalt not question your technocratic overlords; they are smarter than you).
1965: ``Pretty soon we'll have language translation out of the way, and then computers can do any and every intelligent task within a few years."
2000: ``Pretty soon machines will just self-organize to criticality and we won't have to worry about anything!"
Of course, it seems people aren't falling for the latter QUITE as much. Maybe it is a bitten-shy phenomenon; however I believe it is mostly because the latter is even more ridiculous.
Re:Why do ants get all the press? (Score:2, Insightful)