The article describes a Google AI experiment where researchers simulated the emergence of life from non-living matter. Using a neural network, they created a virtual environment where simple agents interacted and evolved. The experiment showed that complex behaviors and even the appearance of “life-like” properties can emerge from simple rules and interactions within a complex system, potentially offering insights into the origins of life on Earth.
This keeps happening over and over and it’s tiring. Simulations leading to a randomly generated self-replicator are a) not novel and b) not sufficiently life-like. There are SO many challenging constraints on a life-like self-replicator. Each constraint is its own active area of research, and we probably aren’t even aware of most of them.
94746382926 on
How is this substantively different from Conway’s Game of life?
MaMaMaaaaa on
I mean, it is “yet to be peer reviewed”. Sounds like an undergrad thesis.
4 Comments
The article describes a Google AI experiment where researchers simulated the emergence of life from non-living matter. Using a neural network, they created a virtual environment where simple agents interacted and evolved. The experiment showed that complex behaviors and even the appearance of “life-like” properties can emerge from simple rules and interactions within a complex system, potentially offering insights into the origins of life on Earth.
Also, [Brainfuck](https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck) is an actual programming language.
This keeps happening over and over and it’s tiring. Simulations leading to a randomly generated self-replicator are a) not novel and b) not sufficiently life-like. There are SO many challenging constraints on a life-like self-replicator. Each constraint is its own active area of research, and we probably aren’t even aware of most of them.
How is this substantively different from Conway’s Game of life?
I mean, it is “yet to be peer reviewed”. Sounds like an undergrad thesis.