This graph shows how many times the word ______ has been mentioned throughout the history of the program.
The following is a conversation with Risto McAlinen, a computer scientist at
the University of Texas at Austin, and Associate Vice President of Evolutionary
Artificial Intelligence at Cognizant.
He specializes in evolutionary computation, but also many other topics in
artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and neuroscience.
Quick mention of our sponsors, Jordan Harbin to show, Grammarly,
Bell Campo, and Indeed.
Check them out in the description to support this podcast.
As a side note, let me say that nature-inspired algorithms from
end-colony optimization to genetic algorithms to cellular automata to neural
networks have always captivated my imagination, not only for their
surprising power in the face of long odds, but because they always opened
up doors to new ways of thinking about computation.
It does seem that in the long arc of computing history, running toward
biology, not running away from it is what leads to long-term progress.
This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
And here is my conversation with Risto McAlinen.
If we ran the Earth experiment, this fun little experiment we're on over
and over and over and over a million times and watch the evolution of life as
it pans out, how much variation in the outcomes of that evolution do you
think we would see?
Now, we should say that you are a computer scientist.
That's actually not such a bad question for computer scientists, because we
are building simulations of these things and we are simulating evolution.
And that's a difficult question to answer in biology, but we can build a
computational model and run it million times and actually answer that question.
How much variation do we see when we simulate it?
And, you know, that's a little bit beyond what we can do today.
But I think that we will see some regularities and it took evolution also
a really long time to get started and then things accelerated really fast
towards the end.
But there are things that need to be discovered and they probably will be
over and over again, like manipulation of objects, opposable thumbs, and also
some way to communicate.
Maybe you're only like, well, you have speech, might be some other kind of
sounds, and decision making, but also vision.
Eye has evolved many times.
Various vision systems have evolved.
So we would see those kinds of solutions, I believe, emerge over and over again.
They may look a little different, but they get the job done.
The really interesting question is, would we have primates?
Would we have humans or something that resembles humans?
And would that be an apex of evolution after a while?
We don't know where we're going from here.
But we certainly see a lot of tool use and building, constructing our environment.
So I think that we will get that.
We get some evolution producing some agents that can do that, manipulate
the environment and build.
What do you think is special about humans?
Like if you are running the simulation and you observe humans emerge, like
these like tool makers, they start a fire and all those stuff start running
around, building buildings and then running for president and all those
kinds of things.
Uh, what would be, how would you detect that?
Cause you're like really busy as the creator of this evolutionary system.
So you don't have much time to observe, like detect if any cool stuff came up.
Right.
How would you detect humans?
Well, you are running the simulation.
So, uh, you also put in visualization and measurement techniques there.
So if you are looking for certain things like communication, uh, you'll have
detectors to find out whether that's happening, even if it's a lot simulation.
Uh, and I think that that's, that's what, uh, what we would do.
Uh, we know roughly what we want, intelligent agents that communicate,
cooperate, manipulate, um, and we would build detections and visualizations
of those processes.
Yeah.
It, and there's a lot of, we'd have to run it many times and we have plenty
of time to figure out how we detect the interesting things, but also, I think
we do have to run it many times because we don't quite know what shape
those will take and our detectors may not be perfect for them.
Uh, the beginning.
Well, that seems really difficult to build the detector of intelligent or
intelligent convert communication, sort of, uh, if we take a lot of
if we take an alien perspective, observing earth, are you sure that they
would be able to detect humans as the special thing?
Wouldn't they be already curious about other things?
There's way more insects by body mass, I think, than humans by far, uh, and
colonies, obviously dolphins is the most intelligent, uh, creature on earth.
We all know this.
So it could be the dolphins that they detect.
It could be the rockets that we seem to be launching.
That could be the intelligent creature they detect.
Uh, it could be some other, uh, trees, trees have been here a long time.
I just learned that sharks have been here 400 million years and that's
longer than trees have been here.
So maybe it's the sharks that go by age.
Like there's a persistent thing.
Like if you survive long enough, especially through the mass extinctions,
that could be the, the, the thing your detector is, uh, detecting humans have
been here for a very short time and we're just creating a lot of pollution.
But so is the other creatures.
So I don't know, do you, do you think you'd be able to detect humans?
Like how would you go about detecting in the computational sense?
Maybe we can leave humans behind in the computational sense, detect interesting.
Things, uh, do you basically have to have a strict objective function by which
you measure the performance of a system or can you find curiosities and interesting things?
Yeah.
Well, I think that the first, um, measurement would be to detect how
how much of an effect you can have in your environment.
So if you look at, look around, we have cities and that is constructed environments.
And that's where a lot of people live.
Most people live.
So that would be a good sign of intelligence that you, uh, don't just
live in an environment, but you construct it to your liking.
Yeah.
And that's something pretty unique.
I mean, there are certainly birds built nest and all, but they don't build
quite cities, termites build, uh, mounds and hives and things like that.
Uh, but the complexity of the human, uh, construction cities,
I think would stand out even to an external observer.
Of course, that's what a human would say.
Yeah.
And you know, you can certainly say that sharks are really smart because
they've been around so long and they haven't destroyed their environment,
which humans are about to do, which is not a very smart thing.
Uh, but we'll get over it.
I'm, I believe, uh, and, and we can get over it by doing some construction
that actually has been nine, uh, and maybe even enhances.
Uh, the, um, resilience of, of nature.
So you mentioned the, the simulation that we run over and over my start.
Slow, it's a slow start.
So do you think, uh, how unlikely, first of all, I don't know if you think
about this kind of stuff, but how unlikely is step number zero, which is the
springing up like the origin of life on earth.
And second, how unlikely is the, um, anything interesting happening beyond
that sort of like the start that, that, that creates all the rich complexity
that we see on earth today.
Yeah.
There are people who are working on exactly that problem, uh, from primordial
soup, how do you actually get self replicating molecules?
And they are very close, uh, with a little bit of help, you can make that happen.
Um, so we, of course, we know what we want so they can set up the conditions
and try out conditions that are conducive to that, uh, for evolution to
discover that took a long time for us to recreate it, probably won't take that
long.
Uh, and the next steps from there, um, I think also with some
hand holding, I think we can make that happen.
Um, but it was evolution.
What was really fascinating was eventually the, the evolution of the
runaway evolution of the brain that created humans and created, well, also
other higher animals, that that was something that happened really fast.
Uh, and that's a big question.
Is that something replicable?
It says something that can happen.
And if it happens, does it go in the same direction?
Um, that is a big question to ask.
Even in computational terms, I think that it's relatively possible to, uh,
come up, create an experiment where we look at the primordial soup and the
first couple of steps of multicellular organisms, even, uh, but to get something
as complex as the brain, um, we don't quite know the conditions for that.
Uh, and how do you even get started on whether we can get this kind of
runaway evolution happening?
From a detector perspective, if we're observing this evolution, what do
you think is the brain?
What do you think is the, let's say, what is intelligence?
So in terms of the thing that makes humans special, we seem to be able to reason.
We seem to be able to communicate.
But the core of that is this something in the broad category we might call intelligence.
So as, uh, if you put your computer scientist hat on, uh, is there favorite
ways you'd like to think about that question of what is intelligence?
Well, my goal is to create agents that are, that are intelligent, not to define what.
And, and that, that is a way of defining it.
And that means that it's some kind of an, um, object or, or a program, um, that
has limited sensory and, uh, effective capabilities interacting with the world.
And then also a mechanism for making decisions.
So with limited abilities like that, can it survive?
Um, survival is the simplest goal, but it could, you could also give it other goals.
Can it multiply?
Can it solve problems that you give it?
Uh, and that is quite a bit less than human intelligence.
There are animals would be intelligent, of course, with that definition.
And you might have, uh, even, even some other forms of, of life, even.
So what, uh, so intelligence in that sense is, is a survival, um, skill, uh, given resources
that you have and using, using your resources so that you will stay around.
So do you think death mortality is fundamental to an agent?
So like there's, uh, I don't know if you're familiar.
There's a philosopher named Ernest Becker who wrote the, uh, the now death and, uh, his
whole idea, and there's folks, psychologists, cognitive scientists that work on terror
management theory, and they think that one of the special things about humans is that
we're able to sort of foresee our death, right?
We can, we can realize not just as animals do sort of constantly fear in an
instinctual sense, respond to all the dangers that are out there, but like
understand that this ride ends eventually.
And that in itself is the most, uh, the most, uh, the most, uh, the most, uh,
most is a, is the force behind all of the creative efforts of human nature.
Yeah.
That's, that's the philosophy.
I think that makes sense.
A lot of sense.
I mean, animals probably don't think of death the same way, but humans know that
your time is limited and you want to make it count.
Um, and you can make it count in many different ways, but I think that has a
lot to do with creativity and the need for humans to do something beyond just
surviving.
Uh, and now going from that simple definition to something that's the
next level, I think that that could be at the second decision, a second
level of definition that, um, intelligence means something that you do
something that stays behind you.
That's more than, uh, your, uh, existence, um, something you create
something that, um, is useful for others is useful in the future, not just for
yourself.
And I think that that's a nicest definition of intelligence in a next
level.
Uh, and it's also nice because it doesn't require that they are humans or
biological, they could be artificial agents of intelligence.
They could, they could achieve those kinds of goals.
So particular agent, the, uh, the ripple effects of, of their existence on the
entirety of the system is significant.
So like they leave a trace where there's like, uh, yeah, like ripple effects.
It's the, but see, then you go back to the, the butterfly with the flap of a
wing and then you can trace a lot of, uh, like nuclear wars and all the
conflicts of human history somehow connected to that one butterfly that
created all the chaos.
So maybe that's not, maybe that's a very poetic way to think, uh, that's
something we humans in a human centric way want to hope we have this impact.
Like that is the, the, the secondary effect of our intelligence.
We've had the long lasting impact on the world, but maybe the entirety of physics
in the universe has a very long lasting effect.
Sure. But, um, you can also think of it, what if, um, like the wonderful life or if
you're not here, will somebody else do this?
Uh, is it, is it something that you actually contributed because you had
something unique to compute that contribute?
That's a pretty high bar though.
Uniqueness.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, you have to be Mozart or something to, to actually reach that
level that nobody would have developed that, but other people might have solved
this equation, um, if you didn't do it, um, but, but also within limited scope.
I mean, during your lifetime or next year, um, you could contribute something that
unique that other people did not see.
And, um, and then that could change the way things move forward for a while.
Uh, so I don't think we have to be more charged to be called intelligence, but we
have this local effect that is changing.
If you weren't there, that would not have happened and it's a positive effect.
Of course, you want it to be a positive effect.
Do you think it's possible to engineer into, uh, computational agents, a fear of
mortality, like, uh, does that make any sense?
So there's a very trivial thing where it's like you can just code in a parameter,
which is how long the life ends, but more of a fear of mortality, like awareness
of the way that things end and somehow encoding a complex representation of
that fear, which is like, maybe as it gets closer, you become more terrified.
I mean, there seems to be something really profound about this fear that's not
currently encodable in a trivial way into our programs.
Well, I think you're referring to the emotion of fear, something because we
have cognitively, we know that we have limited lifespan and most of us cope with
it by just, hey, that's what the world is like and I make the most of it.
But sometimes you can have like a, uh, a fear that's not healthy, uh, that
paralyzes you, that you can't do anything.
Uh, and, uh, somewhere in between, they're not caring at all and, and getting
paralyzed because of fear is a normal response, which is a little bit more
than just logic and, and it's, uh, emotion.
So now the question is what good are emotions?
I mean, they are quite, uh, complex and there are multiple dimensions of
emotions and they probably do serve a survival function, uh, heightened focus,
for instance.
Uh, and fear of death might be a really good emotion when you are in danger
that you recognize it, even, even if it's not logically necessarily easy to derive
and you don't have time for that logical deduction, uh, deduction,
you may be able to recognize the situation is dangerous and this fear kicks in
and you all of a sudden perceive the facts that are important for that.
And I think that's generally is the role of emotions.
It's, it allows you to focus what's relevant, uh, for your situation and maybe
if fear of death plays the same kind of role, uh, but if it consumes you and it's
something that you think in normal life and you don't have to, then it's not
healthy and then it's not productive.
Yeah, but it's fascinating to think how to, uh, incorporate emotion into, uh,
computational agent.
It almost seems like a silly statement to make, but, um, it perhaps seems silly
because we have such a poor understanding of the mechanism of, uh, emotion of fear
of, uh, I think at the core of it is another word that we know nothing about,
but say a lot, which is consciousness.
Um, do you ever in your work or like maybe on a coffee break, think about what the
heck is this thing consciousness and is it at all useful in our thinking about AI
systems?
Yes, it is an important question.
Um, you can build representations and functions, I think into these agents that act
like emotions and consciousness, perhaps.
So I mentioned, uh, emotions being something that allow you to focus and pay
attention, filter out what's important.
Yeah, you can have that kind of a filter mechanism, uh, and you can, it puts you
in a different state.
Your computation is in a different state.
Certain things don't really get through and others are heightened.
Uh, now you label that box emotion.
I don't know if that means it's an emotion, but it acts very much like we
understand what emotions are.
Uh, and we actually did some work like that, um, modeling hyenas, uh, who were
trying to steal a kill from lions, uh, which happens in Africa.
I mean, hyenas are quite intelligent, but not really intelligent.
Uh, and, um, they, they have this behavior that's, uh, you know, you know,
behavior that's more complex than anything else they do.
They can band together if there's about 30 of them or so, uh, they can, uh,
coordinate their effort so that they push the lions away from a kill, even though
the lions are so strong that they could kill a lion, kill a hyena by, by striking
with a paw.
Uh, but when they work together and precisely time this attack, the lions
will leave and they get the kill.
Uh, and probably there are some states like emotions that the hyenas go through.
The first day, uh, they call for reinforcements.
They really want that kill, but there's not enough of them.
So they vocalize and there's more people, more hyenas that come around.
And then they have two emotions.
They're very afraid of the lion, uh, so they want to stay away, but they also
have a strong affiliation, uh, with, between each other.
And then this is the balance of the two emotions.
And, and also, yes, they also want the kill.
So it's both repelled and attractive.
And then, but then this affiliation eventually is so strong that when they
move, they move together, they act as a unit and they, they can, uh, perform that function.
So there's an interesting behavior that seems to depend on these emotions
strongly and makes it possible, um, in the actions.
And I think a critical aspect of that, the way you're describing his emotion
there is this, is a mechanism of social communication of a social interaction.
Maybe that, maybe humans won't even be that intelligent or most things we think
of as intelligent wouldn't be that intelligent without the social component
of interaction.
Maybe much of our intelligence is essentially an outgrowth of social interaction.
And maybe for the creation of intelligent agents, we have to be creating
fundamentally social systems.
Yes, I strongly believe that's true.
And, uh, yes, the, uh, communication is multifaceted.
I mean, they, they vocalize and call for friends, but they also rub against each other
and they push and they do all kinds of gestures and so on.
So they know and act alone.
And I don't think people act alone, uh, very much either, at least normal most of the time.
And social systems are so strong for humans, um, that I think we build everything on top
of these kinds of structures.
And, um, one interesting theory around that because this theory, for instance, for language
where language origins is that, uh, where did language come from?
And, um, and it's a plausible theory that, uh, first came social systems that, uh, you
have different roles in a society.
Um, and then those roles are exchangeable that, you know, I scratch your back, you scratch
my back, we can exchange roles.
And once you have the brain structures that allow you to understand actions in terms of
roles that can be changed, that's the basis for language for grammar.
And now you can start using symbols to refer to, uh, objects in the world.
And you have this flexible structure.
So there's a social structure that's fundamental for language to develop.
Now, again, then you have language, you can, you can refer to things that are not here
right now, uh, and that allows you to then build all the, all the good stuff about, uh,
planning, for instance, and building things and so on.
So, yeah, I think that very strongly, um, humans are social and that gives us ability,
um, uh, to structure the world, but also as a society, we can do so much more because
we don't, one person does not have to do everything.
You can have different roles and together achieve a lot more.
Uh, and that's also something we see in computational simulations today.
I mean, we have multi-agent systems that can perform tasks.
This fascinating, uh, demonstration, Marco Dorico, I think it was, um, these robots,
little robots that had to navigate through an environment and there were, there were
things that are dangerous, like maybe a big chasm or some kind of groove, a hole,
and they could not get across it.
But if they grab each other with their gripper, they formed a robot that was much longer
under the team and this way they could get across that.
So this is a great example of how together we can achieve things we couldn't otherwise.
Like the hyenas, you know, alone they couldn't, but as a team they could.
Uh, and I think humans do that all the time.
We're really good at that.
Yeah.
And the way you described the, the system of hyenas, it almost sounds algorithmic.
Like the, the problem with humans is they're so complex.
It's hard to think of them as algorithms, but with hyenas, there's a, it's simple enough
to where it feels like, um, at least hopeful that it's possible to create
computational systems that mimic that.
Yeah, that's exactly why, why we looked at that as opposed to humans.
Um, like I said, they are intelligent, but they are not quite as intelligent,
intelligent as say baboons, which would learn a lot and would be much more flexible.
The hyenas are relatively rigid in what they can do.
And therefore you could look at this behavior like this is a breakthrough in evolution about
to happen.
Yes.
That they've discovered something about social structures, communication, about cooperation,
and, and it might then spill over to other things too in thousands of years in the future.
Yeah.
I think the problem with baboons and humans is probably too much is going on inside the head
where we won't be able to measure it if we're observing the system with hyenas.
That's probably easier to observe the actual decision making and the various
motivations that are involved.
Yeah.
They are visible.
And we can even, um, quantify possibly their emotional state because they leave droppings
behind and, and there are chemicals there that can be associated with, uh, with neurotransmitters.
And we can separate what emotions they might have, uh, experienced in the last 24 hours.
Yeah.
What to use the most beautiful speaking of hyenas, uh, what to use the most beautiful, uh,
nature inspired algorithm in your work that you've come across something maybe earlier
on in your work or maybe today.
I, I think it's evolution, uh, computation is the most amazing method.
So what fascinates me most is that, uh, with computers is that you can,
you can get more out than you put in.
I mean, you can write a piece of code and your machine does what you told it.
I mean, this happened to me in my freshman year.
It did something very simple and I was just amazed.
I was blown away that it would, it would get the number and it would compute the result.
And I didn't have to do it myself.
Very simple.
Uh, but if you push that a little further, you can have machines that learn and they
might learn patterns, uh, and already say deep learning neural networks.
They can learn to recognize objects, sounds, um, patterns that humans have trouble with.
And sometimes they do it better than humans.
And that's so fascinating.
And now if you take that one more step, you get something like evolution algorithms
that discover things, they create things.
They come up with solutions that you did not think of.
And that just blows me away.
It's so great that we can build systems, algorithms that can be in some sense
smarter than we are, that they can discover solutions that we might miss.
Um, a lot of times it is because we have, as humans, we have certain biases.
We expect the solutions to be certain way and you don't put those biases into the
algorithms so they are more free to explore and evolution is just absolutely fantastic
explorer.
And that's what, what really is fascinating.
Yeah.
I think, uh, I give me fun of a bit because I currently don't have any kids,
but you mentioned programs.
I mean, um, do you have kids?
Yeah.
So maybe you could speak to this, but there's a magic to the creation creative process.
Like I, uh, with, with spot, the Boston dynamic spot, but really any robot that
ever worked on, it just feels like the similar kind of joy I imagine I would have as a father,
not the same, perhaps level, but like the same kind of wonderment.
Like there's exactly this, which is like, you know what you had to do initially to get this
thing going.
Let's speak on the computer science side, like what the program looks like, but something
about it, uh, doing more than what the program was written on paper is like, that's somehow
connects to the magic of this entire universe.
Like that's, that's like, I feel like I found God every time.
I like, it's like, uh, because you're, you've really created something that's living.
Yeah.
Even if it's a simple program, has intelligent of its own.
It's beyond what you actually thought.
Yeah.
And that is, I think it's exactly spot on.
That's exactly what it's about.
Uh, you created something and has a ability to, uh, live its life and do good things.
And, um, you just gave it a starting point.
So in that sense, I think it's, that may be part of the joy, actually.
But you mentioned creativity in this context, especially in the context of evolutionary
computation.
So, you know, we don't often think of algorithms as creative.
So how do you think about creativity?
Um, yeah, algorithms absolutely can be creative.
Um, they can, uh, come up with solutions that you don't think about.
I mean, creativity can be defined.
A couple of requirements have to, has to be new.
It has to be useful and it has to be surprising.
And those certainly are true with, uh, say evolution, computation, discovering solutions.
Um, so maybe an example, for instance, we did, um, this collaboration with MIT media
lab, Caleb harvest lab, uh, where they had a hydroponic, um, food computer, they called
it environment that was completely computer controlled, nutrients, water, light, uh,
temperature, everything is controlled.
Now, um, what do you do if you can control everything?
Farmers know a lot about how to do, how to make plants grow in their own patch of land.
But if you can control everything, it's too much.
And it turns out that we don't actually know very much about it.
So, uh, we built a system, evolution optimization system, um, together with a surrogate model
of how plants grow, uh, and let this system explore recipes on its own.
And initially we were focusing on light, uh, how strong, what the wavelengths,
how long the light was on, um, and we put some boundaries, which we thought were reasonable,
for instance, that there was, um, at least six hours of darkness like night,
because that's what we have in the world.
And very quickly, um, the system evolution, um, pushed all the recipes to that limit.
Uh, we were trying to grow basil, um, and, uh, we had initially had some 200, 300 recipes,
exploration as well as known recipes, but, but now we are going beyond that.
And everything was like pushed at that limit.
So we look at it and say, well, you know, we can easily just change it.
Let's have it your way.
And it turns out, uh, the system discovered that basil does not need to sleep.
Uh, 24 hours lights on and it will thrive.
It will be bigger.
It'll be tastier.
And this was a big surprise, um, not just to us, but also the biologist in the team,
that, uh, anticipated that there's some constraints that, that are in the world.
For a reason, it turns out that evolution did not have the same bias.
And therefore it discovered something that was creative.
It was surprising, it was useful, and it was new.
That's fascinating to think about like the things we think that are fundamental to
living systems on earth today, whether they're actually fundamental,
or they somehow shape, uh, fit the constraints of the system.
And all we'll have to do is just remove the constraints.
Do you ever think about, um, I don't know how much you know about brain computer interfaces
in your link.
The, the idea there is, you know, our brains are very limited.
And if we just allow, we plug in, we, we provide a mechanism for a computer to speak with the brain.
So you're thereby expanding the computational power of the brain, the possibilities there,
sort of from a very high level of philosophical perspective, is limitless.
But I wonder how limitless it is.
Are the constraints we have, like features that are fundamental to our intelligence?
Or is this just like this weird constraint in terms of our brain size and skull and, uh,
lifespan and, uh, senses is just the weird little, like a quirk of evolution.
And if we just open that up, like add much more senses, add much more computational power,
the, uh, intelligence will be, will expand exponentially.
Do you have a, do you have a sense about constraints, the relationship between the
, the relationship of evolution and computation to the constraints of the environment?
Um, well, at first I'd like to comment on, on that, like changing the inputs, uh, to human brain.
Uh, and flexibility of, of the brain.
I think there's a lot of that.
Uh, the experiments that are done in animals like Mikanga sir, um, but MIT is switching the, um,
auditory and visual, uh, information and going, going to the wrong part of the cortex and the animal, uh,
was still able to hear and, and perceive the visual environment.
And there are, um, kids that are, are born with severe disorders and sometimes you have to remove
half of the brain, like one half, and they still grow up.
They have the functions migrate to the other parts.
There's a lot of flexibility like that.
So I think it's quite possible to, um, hook up the brain with different kinds of sensors,
for instance, uh, and, uh, something that we don't even quite understand or have today,
a different kind of wavelengths or whatever they are.
Um, and then the brain can learn to make sense of it.
And that I think is, um, there's good hope that these prosthetic devices, for instance, work,
not because we make them so good and so easy to use, but the brain adapts to them and can learn
to take advantage of them.
Um, and so in that sense, if there's a trouble, a problem, I think that brain can be used to
correct it.
Now going beyond what we have today, can you get smarter?
That's really how much harder to do, uh, giving the brain more, more input probably
might overwhelm it.
It would have to learn to filter it and focus, um, and in order to use the information
effectively, uh, and augmenting intelligence with some kind of external devices like that
might be difficult, uh, I think, but, uh, replacing what's lost, I think is quite possible.
Right.
So our intuition allows us to sort of imagine that we can replace what's been lost,
but expansion beyond what we have.
I mean, we are already one of the most, if not the most intelligent things on this earth,
right?
So it's hard to imagine, um, if the brain can hold up with an order of magnitude greater
set of information thrown at it, if it can do, if it can reason through that.
Part of me, this is the Russian thing I think is, uh, I tend to think that the limitations
is where the, the superpower is that, you know, immortality and, uh, huge increase in bandwidth
of, um, information by connecting computers with the brain is not going to produce greater
intelligence.
It might produce lesser intelligence, so I don't know.
There's something about the scarcity being, uh, essential to, uh, um, fitness or performance,
but that could be just because we're so, uh, limited.
No, exactly.
You make do with what you have, but you can, uh, you don't have to pipe it directly to the brain.
I mean, we already have devices like, uh, phones where we can look up information at any point.
Yeah.
And that can make us more productive.
You don't have to argue about, I don't know, what happened in that baseball game or whatever
it is because you can look it up right away.
And I think in that sense, uh, we can learn to utilize tools and that's what we, we have
been doing for a long, long time.
Um, so, and we are already, the brain is already drinking from the water, uh, fire hose,
like vision.
There's way more information in the vision that we actually present.
So brain is already good at identifying what matters.
Yeah.
Um, and that we can switch that from vision to some other wavelength or some other kind
of modality, but I think that the same processing principles probably still apply.
Uh, but, but also, indeed, this, uh, ability to, uh, have information more accessible and
more relevant, I think can enhance what we do.
I mean, kids today at school, they learn about DNA.
I mean, things that we discovered just a couple of years ago, uh, and it's already come
in knowledge and we are building on it and we don't see a problem where, um, where there's
too much information that we can absorb and learn.
Maybe people become a little bit more narrow in what they know.
They are in one field, uh, but this information that we have accumulated, it is passed on and
people are picking up on it and they are building on it.
So it's not like we have reached the point of saturation.
Um, we have still this process that allows us to be selective and decide what's interesting.
Um, I think still works even, even with the more information we have today.
Yeah, it's, it's fascinating to think about like Wikipedia becoming a sensor.
Like, uh, so the fire hose of information from Wikipedia.
So it's like you integrated directly into the brain to where you're thinking,
like you're observing the world with all of Wikipedia directly piping into your brain.
Um, so like, uh, when I see a light, I immediately have like the history of
who invented electricity, like integrated very quickly into, so just the way you think
about the world might be very interesting if you can integrate that kind of information.
What are your thoughts if I could ask, uh, on, uh, early steps on the, on the neural link side,
I don't know if you got a chance to see, but, uh, there was a monkey playing pong
through the brain computer interface and, uh, the dream there is sort of,
you're already replacing the thumbs essentially that you would use to play a video game.
The dream is to be able to increase further the, um, the interface by which you interact
with the computer. Are you impressed by this? Are you worried about this?
What are your thoughts as a human?
I think it's wonderful. I think it's great that we could, we could do something like that.
I mean, you can, there are devices that read your EEG for instance, and, and you,
and humans can learn, um, to control things using, using just their thoughts in that sense.
And I don't think it's that different. I mean, those signals would go to limbs,
they would go to thumbs. Uh, now the same signals go through a sensor to, to some computing system.
Um, it still probably has to be built on human terms, uh, not to overwhelm them, but,
but utilize what's there and sense the right kind of, um, patterns, uh, that are easy to generate.
But oh, that, I think it's really quite possible and, and, and wonderful and could be very much
more efficient. Is there, so you mentioned surprising being a characteristic of, uh,
creativity. Is there something you already mentioned a few examples, but is there something
that jumps out at you as was particularly surprising from the various evolutionary
computation systems you've worked on, the solutions that were, um, come up along the way,
not necessarily the final solutions, but maybe things that would even discarded.
Is there something that just jumps the mind?
It, it happens all the time. I mean, evolution is so creative, uh, so good at discovering,
uh, solutions you don't anticipate. A lot of times they are taking advantage of something
that you didn't think was there, like a bug in the software. A lot of, there's a great paper,
uh, the community put it together about, uh, surprising anecdotes about evolutionary computation.
A lot of them are indeed in some software environment, there was a loophole or a bug
and the system, uh, utilizes that.
By the way, for people who want to read, it's kind of fun to read. It's, uh, it's called the
surprising creativity of digital evolution, a collection of anecdotes from the evolutionary
computation and artificial life research communities. And there's just a bunch of stories
from all the seminal figures in this community. Uh, you have a story in there, uh, that released
to you, at least on the tic-tac-toe memory bomb. So can you, can you, uh, I guess, uh,
describe that situation if you think that's, yeah, that was, that's a quite a bit smaller
scale than our, um, basically doesn't need to sleep surprise, but, but it was actually done
by students in my class, um, in a neural net evolution computation class. Uh, there was an
assignment. Uh, it was perhaps a final project where people built game playing, uh, AI. It
was an AI class. Uh, and this one, and, and it was for tic-tac-toe or five in a row in a large
board. Uh, and, uh, this one team evolved a neural network to make these moves. Uh, and,
um, they set it up, the evolution. They didn't really know what would come out. Um, but it
turned out that they did really well. Evolution actually won the tournament. And, uh, most of the
time when it won, it won because the other teams crashed. And then when we look at it, like what
was going on was that evolution discovered that if it makes a move, that's really, really far away,
like millions of squares, uh, away. Uh, the other teams, the other programs just expanded memory
in order to take that into account until they run out of memory and crashed. And then you
have been a tournament by crossing all your opponents. I think that's quite a profound example,
which probably applies to most games from, uh, even a game theoretic perspective,
that sometimes to win, you don't have to be better within the rules of the game. You have
to come up with ways to break your opponent's, uh, brain. Uh, if it's a human, like not through
violence, but through some hack where the brain just is not, um, you're basically, uh, how would
you put it? You're, you're, the, you're going outside the constraints of where the brain is able
to, to function. Expectations of your opponent. I mean, this was even Kasparov pointed that out
that when Deep Blue was playing against Kasparov, that it was not playing the same way as Kasparov
expected. Uh, and this has to do with, you know, being, not having the same biases. Uh, and that's,
that's really one of the strengths of, of the AI approach. Yeah.
Can you at a high level say what are the basic mechanisms of evolutionary computation algorithms
that use something that could be called an evolutionary approach? Like how does it work?
Uh, what are the connections to the, it's, what are the echoes of the connection to his
biological? A lot of these algorithms really do take motivation from biology, but they are
caricatures. You try to essentialize it and take the elements that you believe matter.
So in evolutionary computation, it is the creation of variation and then the selection
upon that. Uh, so the creation of variation, you have to have some mechanism that allow you to
create new individuals that are very different from what you already have. That's the creativity
part. Uh, and then you have to have some way of measuring how well they are doing. Uh, and using
the, uh, that measure to select, uh, who goes to the next generation and, and you continue.
So first of all, also you have to have some kind of digital representation of an individual that
can be then modified. So I guess humans in biological systems have DNA and all those kinds
of things. You have to have similar kind of encodings in a computer program.
Yes. And that is a big question. How do you encode these individuals? So there's a genotype,
which is that encoding, and then a decoding mechanism that gives you the phenotype,
which is the actual individual that then performs the task and in an environment,
can be evaluated how good it is. So even that mapping is a big question. Then how do you do it?
But typically the representations are either they are strings of numbers or they are some
kind of trees. Those are something that we know very well in computer science and we try to do
that. But they, and you know, DNA in some sense is also a sequence and a string. So it's not that
far from it, but DNA also has many other aspects that we don't take into account necessarily,
like there's folding and, um, and interactions that are other than just the sequence itself.
And lots of that is not yet captured. And we don't know whether they are really crucial.
Um, evolution, biological evolution has produced wonderful things. But if you look at them,
it's not necessarily the case that every piece is irreplaceable and essential. There's a lot of
baggage because you have to construct it and it has to go through various stages and we still have
appendix and we have tailbones and things like that that are not really that useful.
If you try to explain them now, it would make no sense. Very hard. But if you think of, um,
as a productive evolution, you can see where they came from. They were useful at one point,
perhaps, and no longer are, but they're still there. So, um, that process is complex and your
representation should support it. And that is quite difficult. Um, if, if we are limited with
strings or trees, uh, and then we are pretty much limited what can be constructed. And one thing
that we are still missing in evolution computation in particular is what we saw in biology, major
transitions. So that you go from, for instance, single cell to multi cell organisms and eventually
societies that transitions of level of selection and level of what a unit is. And that's something
we haven't captured in evolution computation yet. Does that require a dramatic expansion of the
representation? Is that what that, that is? Most likely it does, but it's quite, we don't even
understand it in biology very well where it's coming from. So it would be really good to look at
major transitions in biology, try to characterize them. Uh, it'll be more in detail what the processes
are. How, how does a, so like a unit, a cell is no longer evaluated alone. It's evaluated as part
of a community. Even though it could reproduce, now it can't alone. It has, has to have it in
environment. So there's a, there's a push to another level, uh, at least the selection.
And how do you make that jump? Yes. How do you make the jump?
That's part of the algorithm. Yeah. Yeah. So we haven't really seen that in computation,
um, yet, and there are certainly attempts to have open-ended evolution. Things that
could add more complexity and start selecting at a higher level, but it, it is still not,
um, quite the same as going from single to multi to society, for instance, in, in biology.
So, so there essentially would be, as opposed to having one agent, those agent, all of a sudden
spontaneously decided to then be together. And then your entire system would then be treating
them as one agent, something like that, some, some kind of weird merger, but then, but also,
so you mentioned, I think you mentioned selection. So basically there's an agent
and they don't get to live on if they don't do well. So there's some kind of measure of what
doing well is and isn't, and, uh, does, uh, mutation come into play at all in the process
and what the world does it serve? Yeah. So, and again, back to what the computational
mechanisms of evolution computation are. So, um, the way to create variation, uh,
you can take multiple individuals too, usually, but, but you could do more, uh, and you exchanged,
uh, um, the repart of the representation. You do some kind of recombination, could be crossover,
for instance. Um, in biology, you do have DNA strings that, that are cut and put together again.
We could do something like that. Um, and it seems to be that in biology, crossover is really the
workhorse in, in, uh, biological evolution. Uh, in computation, we tend to rely more on mutation.
Uh, and that is making random changes into parts of the chromosome. You try to be intelligent and
target certain areas of it and make the mutations also, um, follow some principle like you collect
statistics of performance and correlations and try to make mutations you believe are going to be
helpful. That's where evolution computation has moved in the last 20 years. I mean,
evolution computation has been around for 50 years, but a lot of the reason, um, success comes
from mutation, comes from, comes from using statistics. It's like the rest of machine
learning based on statistics. We use similar tools to guide evolutionary computation. And in
that sense, it has diverged a bit from biological evolution. And that's one of the things I think
we could look at again, uh, having a weaker selection, more crossover, large populations,
more time, and maybe a different kind of creativity would come out of it. We are very
impatient in evolution computation today. We want answers right now, right? Quickly. And every, if
somebody doesn't perform, kill it. Yeah. Uh, and, uh, and biological evolution doesn't work quite that
way. Uh, and, and it's more patient. Yes. Much more patient. Um, so I guess we need to add, uh,
some kind of mating, some kind of like dating mechanisms, like marriage may be in there. So
to, uh, in, into our algorithms to improve the, the, the, the combination mechanism as opposed to
all mutation during all of the work. Yeah. And many ways of being successful, you know, usually
in evolution computation, we have one goal, you know, play this game really well, uh, and compared
to others. But in biology, there are many ways of being successful. You can build niches, you can,
uh, be stronger, faster, larger, or smarter, or, you know, eat this or eat that. Or, you know, so,
so there are many ways to solve the same problem of survival. And that, uh, then breeds creativity.
Um, and, um, it allows more exploration and eventually you get solutions that are perhaps
more creative rather than trying to go from initial population directly or more, more or less directly
to your maximum fitness, which you measure as just one metric. So in a broad sense,
before we talk about newer evolution, do you see evolutionary computation as more effective
than deep learning in certain contexts, machine learning, broadly speaking, maybe even supervised
machine learning? I don't know if you want to draw any kind of lines and distinctions and
borders where they rub up against each other kind of thing, where one is more effective than the
other in the current state of things. Yes. Of course, they are very different and they address
different kinds of problems. And, um, the deep learning, uh, has been really successful in domains
where we have a lot of data. Um, and that means not just data about situations, but also what the
right answers were. Uh, so labeled examples, or they might be predictions, maybe weather prediction
where the data itself, uh, becomes labels, what happened, what the weather was today and what
it will, it will be tomorrow. Um, so they are very effective deep learning methods on, on that kind
of tasks. Uh, but there are other kinds of tasks where we don't really know what the right answer
is. Uh, game playing, for instance, but, um, many robotics tasks and, uh, actions in the world,
decision making, um, and, and actual practice practical applications like treatments and
healthcare or investment in stock market. Many tasks are like that. We will, we don't know,
and we'll never know what the optimal answers were. And there you need different kinds of
approach. Reinforcement learning is one of those. Uh, reinforcement learning comes from biology as
well. Uh, agents learn during their lifetime. They buries and sometimes they get sick and then they
don't and get stronger. Uh, and then that's how you learn. Uh, and evolution is also a mechanism,
um, like that, um, at a different timescale because you have a population, not an individual
during his lifetime, but an entire population as a whole can discover, um, what works. And there
you can afford individuals that don't work out. They, you know, everybody dies and you have a
next generation and it will be better than the previous one. So that's, that's the big difference
between these methods. They apply to different kinds of problems. Um, and, um, in particular,
there's often a comparison that's kind of interesting and important between reinforcement
learning and evolution and computation. Um, and initially, um, reinforcement learning was about
individual learning during the lifetime and evolution is more engineering. You don't care
about the lifetime. You don't care about all the individuals that are tested. You only care about
the final result, the last one, the best, um, candidate that evolution produced. Uh, in that
sense, they also apply to different kinds of problems. And now that boundary is starting
to blur a bit. You can use evolution as an online method and reinforcement learning to
create engineering solutions, but that's still roughly the distinction. Uh, and, um,
from the point of view, what algorithm you want to use, if you have something where there is a
cost for every trial, reinforcement learning might be your choice. Uh, now, if you have a
domain where you can use a surrogate, perhaps, um, so you don't have much of a cost, uh, for trial,
and you want to have surprises, you want to explore more broadly than this population based
method, uh, is, um, perhaps a better choice because you, you can try things out that you
wouldn't afford when you're doing reinforcement. There's very few things as entertaining as
watching either evolution, computation, or reinforcement learning, teaching a simulated
robot to walk. I, maybe there's a higher level question they could be asked here, but do you
find this whole space in, uh, of applications in the robotics interesting for evolution
computation? Yeah. Yeah. Very much. Um, and indeed that's, they're all fascinating videos of that.
And that's actually one of the examples where you can contrast the difference. So
between reinforcement learning and reinforcement learning evolution. Yes. So
if you have a reinforcement learning agent, it tries to be conservative because it wants to
walk as long as possible and be stable. But if you have evolution computation, it can afford
these agents that go haywire, they fall flat on their face and they take a, take a step and then
they jump and then again fall flat. Yeah. And eventually what comes out of that is something
like a falling that's controlled. Yeah. And you take another step and another step and you no
longer fall, fall. Instead you run, you go fast. So that's a way of discovering something that's
hard to discover step by step incrementally. Yeah. Because you can afford these, um,
evolutionists dead ends, although they are not entirely dead ends in the sense that they can
serve as stepping stones. When you take two of those, put them together, you get something that
works even better. Um, and that is a great example of, uh, of this kind of discovery.
Yeah. Learning to walk is a, is fascinating and talk quite a bit to Russ Stedger, cause MIT,
there's a, there's a community of folks who, who just roboticists who love the elegance
and beauty of, uh, movement. Right. And, uh, walking bipedal robotics is, um, beautiful,
but also exceptionally dangerous in the sense that like you're constantly falling essentially
if you want to do elegant movement. And, uh, the discovery of that is, uh,
I mean, it, it's such a good example of, um, that the discovery of a good solution sometimes
requires a leap of faith and patience and all those kinds of things. I wonder what other spaces
where you had to discover those kinds of things in. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And another interesting
direction is, um, learning, um, for, for, um, virtual creatures, learning to walk. Uh, we did
a study in, in, in simulation, obviously that, um, you create those creatures, not just their controller,
but also their body. So you have cylinders, you have muscles, you have joints, uh, and sensors,
and you're creating creatures that look quite different. Some of them have multiple legs,
some of them have no legs at all. Uh, and then the goal was to get them to move,
to walk, to run. Uh, and what was interesting is, is that when you evolve the controller
together with the body, you get movements that look natural because they're optimized for that
physical setup. And, and these creatures, you start believing them that they're alive because
they walk in a way that you would expect somebody with that kind of a setup to walk.
Yeah. There's a, there's something subjective also about that, right? I've been thinking a lot
about that, especially in, um, the human, uh, robot interaction context. You know, I mentioned Spot,
the Boston Dynamics Robot. There is something about human robot communication. Let's say,
let's put it in another context, something about human and, uh, dog context, like, like a living dog
where there's, uh, there's a, there's a dance of communication. First of all, the eyes, you both
look at the same thing and you, the dogs communicate with their eyes as well. Like if, if the, if you
and a dog want to, uh, like deal with a particular object, you will look at the person, the dog
will look at you and then look at the object and look back at you, all those kinds of things.
But there's also just the elegance of movement. I mean, there's the, of course, the tail and all
those kinds of mechanisms of communication and all seems natural and, uh, often joyful. And for
robots to communicate that is, is really difficult how to figure that out because it's, it's almost
seems impossible to hard code in. You can hard code it for a demo purpose. What's, you know,
something like that, but it's essentially choreographed. Like if you watch some of the Boston
Dynamics videos where they're dancing, all of that is choreographed by human beings.
But to learn how to, with your movement, demonstrate a naturalness and elegance,
that's fascinating. Of course, in the physical space, that's very difficult to do, to learn the
kind of at scale that you're referring to. But the hope is that you could do that in simulation
and then transfer into the physical space. If you're able to model the robot sufficiently
naturally. Yeah. Yeah. And, and sometimes I think that that requires a theory of mind on the,
on the, on the, on the side of the robot that, um, that they, they understand what you're doing
because they themselves are doing something similar. And, uh, that's a big question too.
Uh, we talked about how intelligence in general and, and the social aspect of, of intelligence.
And I think that's what is required that we humans understand other humans because we
assume that they are similar to us. Um, we have one simulation we did a while ago, Ken Stanley,
um, did that, um, two robots that were, uh, competing, um, simulation, like I said, uh,
they were foraging for food to gain energy. And then when they were really strong, they would
bounce into the other robot and win if they were stronger. Uh, and, uh, we watched evolution
discover more and more complex behaviors. They first went to the nearest food and then they
started to, um, plot a trajectory so they get more, get more, but then they started to take,
pay attention what the other robot was doing. And in the end, there was a behavior where
one of the robots, the most sophisticated one, uh, you know, sensed where the food pieces were
and identified that the other robot was close to, uh, two of a very far distance. Uh, and there was
one more food nearby. So it faked, uh, that's now I'm using anthropomorphizing terms, but
it made a move towards those other pieces in order for the other robot to actually go and get
them because it knew that the other, the last remaining piece of food was close and the other
robot would have to travel a long way, lose its energy, and then, uh, lose the whole competition.
So there was like an emergence of something like a theory of mind, knowing what the other robot
would do to guide it towards bad behavior in order to win. So we can get things like that
happen, uh, in, in simulation as well. But that's a complete natural emergence of a theory of mind.
But I feel like if you add a little bit of a place for a theory of mind to emerge
like easier, then, um, you can go really far. I mean, some of these things with evolution,
you know, you add a little bit of design in there. It'll really help. And I think, I tend to think
that a very simple theory of mind will go a really long way for cooperation between agents
and certainly for human robot interaction. Like it doesn't have to be super complicated.
Um, I've gotten a chance to, in the autonomous vehicle space to watch vehicles interact with
pedestrians or pedestrians interacting with vehicles in general. I mean, you would think
that there's a very complicated theory of mind thing going on, but I have a sense it's not well
understood yet, but I have a sense it's pretty dumb. Like it's pretty simple. There's a social
contract there where, uh, between humans, a human driver and a human crossing the road where, um,
the, the human crossing the road trusts that the human in the car is not going to murder them.
And there's something about, again, back to that mortality thing. There's some dance of
ethics and morality that's built in that you're mapping your own morality onto the,
the person in the car. And even if they're driving at a speed where you think if they don't stop,
they're going to kill you. You trust that if you step in front of them, they're going to hit the
brakes. And there's that weird dance that we do that I think is a pretty simple model, but of
course it's very difficult to, to introspect what it is. And autonomous robots in the human robot
interaction context have to, have to build that current robots are much less than what you're
describing. They're currently just afraid of everything. They're, they're more, they're not
the kind that fall and discover how to run. They're more like, please don't touch anything. Don't
hurt anything. Stay as far away from humans as possible. Treat humans as ballistic objects that
you can't, uh, that you do, uh, with a large spatial envelope, make sure you do not collide with.
That's how like I mentioned, Elon Musk thinks about autonomous vehicles. I tend to think
autonomous vehicles need to have a beautiful dance between human and machine,
where it's not just the collision avoidance problem, but a weird dance. Yeah, I think that you,
these systems need to be able to predict what will happen, what the other agent is going to do,
and then have a structure of what the goals are and whether those predictions actually meet the
goals. And, and you can go probably pretty far with that relatively simple setup already.
But if you call it a theory of mind, I don't think you need to. I mean, it, it doesn't matter
whether the pedestrian has a mind. It's an object and we can predict what we will do.
And then we can predict what the states will be in the future and whether they are desirable states.
Stay away from those that are undesirable and go towards those that are desirable. So
it's a relatively simple functional approach to that. Um, where do we really need the theory of
mind? Um, maybe, maybe when you start interacting and, uh, you're trying to get the other agent to
do something and jointly so that you can jointly collaboratively achieve something, then, then you,
then it becomes more complex. Well, I mean, even with the pedestrians, you have to have a sense of
where their attention, actual attention in terms of their gaze is, but also like attend, I mean,
there's this vision science, people talk about this all the time, just because I'm looking at it
doesn't mean I'm paying attention to it. So figuring out what is the person looking at,
what is the sensor information they've taken in. And the theory of mind piece comes in is
what are they actually attending to cognitively? And also, what are they thinking about? Like,
what is the computation they're performing? And you have, you have probably maybe a few options.
You know, the, for the pedestrian crossing, it doesn't have to be, it's like a variable with
a few discrete states, but you have to have a good estimation, which of the states that brain is in
for the pedestrian case. And the same is for attending with a robot. If you're collaborating
to pick up an object, you have to figure out is the human like, uh, like there's a few discrete
states that the human could be in. You have to, you have to predict that by observing the human.
And that seems like a machine learning problem to figure out, uh, what's how the human is, uh,
what's the human up to? It's not as simple as, uh, sort of planning. Just because they move
their arm means the arm will continue moving in this direction. You have to, you have to really
have a model of what they're thinking about and what's the motivation behind the movement of the
arm. And here we are talking about, uh, relatively simple physical actions, but you can take that
the higher levels also, like to predict what the people are going to do. You need to know
what, uh, what their goals are, uh, what are they trying to, are they exercising? Are they just
starting to get some, but even, even higher level, I mean, you are predicting what people will do in
their career, what their life themes are. Do they want to be famous rich or do good? And, you know,
that takes a lot more information, but it allows you to then predict their, their actions, what
choices they might make. So how does, uh, evolution and computation apply to the world of neural
networks? Cause I've seen quite a bit of work from you and others on the, in the world of
neural evolution. So maybe first, can you say what is this field? Yeah, neural evolution is a
combination of, of neural networks and evolution, computation in many different forms, but, uh,
the early versions were simply using evolution, the way, um, as a way to construct a neural network
instead of say, uh, stochastic gradient descent or backpropagation, um, because evolution can
evolve these, uh, parameters, weight values in a neural network, just like any other string
of numbers you can, you can do that. Uh, and that's useful because some cases you don't have
those targets that you need to, um, backpropagate from. And it might be an agent that's running a
maze or a robot, uh, playing a game or something. Uh, you don't, again, you don't know what the
right answers are. You don't have backprop, but this way you can still evolve a neural net.
And neural networks are really good at these tasks because they, um, they recognize patterns and they,
and generalize, interpolate between known situations. So you want to have a neural network
in such a task, even if you don't have the supervised targets. So that's the reason and
that's a solution. Uh, and also more recently, now when we have all this deep learning literature,
it turns out that we can use evolution to optimize many aspects of those designs.
The deep learning architectures have become so complex that there's little hope for
us little humans to understand their complexity and what actually makes a good design.
Uh, and now we can use evolution to give that design for you. And it might be, mean, um,
optimizing hyper parameters, like the depth of layers and so on, uh, or the topology of the
network, um, how many layers, how they connected, but also other aspects like what activation
functions you use, where in the network during the learning process or what loss function you use.
You could generalize that, uh, generate that, um, even data augmentation, all the different
aspects of the design of a deep learning experiments could be optimized that way.
So that's an inter interaction between two mechanisms. But there's also, um,
when we get more into cognitive science and the topics that we've been talking about,
you could have learning mechanisms at two level timescales. So you do have an evolution
that gives you baby neural networks that then learn during their lifetime. And you have this
interaction of two timescales. And I think that can potentially be really powerful.
Um, now in biology, we are not born with all our faculties. We have to learn. We have a
developmental period in humans. It's really long. Uh, and most animals have something.
And, and probably the reason is that evolution at DNA is not detailed enough or plentiful enough
to describe them. We can't describe how to set the brain up. Um, but we can, evolution can decide,
uh, decide on a starting point and then have a learning algorithm that will construct the final
product. And this interaction of, you know, intelligent, um, well, uh, evolution that has
produced a good starting point for the specific purpose of learning from it, uh, with the interaction
of, uh, with the environment, that can be a really powerful mechanism for constructing
brains and constructing behaviors. I like how you walk back from intelligence. So optimize
starting point, maybe. Uh, okay. There's a lot of fascinating things to ask here. And this is
basically this dance between neural networks and evolution and computation could go into the category
of automated machine learnings to where you're optimizing, whether it's hyperparameters of the
topology or hyperparameters taken broadly, but the topology thing is really interesting. I mean,
that's not really done that effectively or throughout the history of machine learning has
not been done. Usually there's a fixed architecture. Maybe there's a few components you're playing with,
but to grow in your own network, essentially the way you grow in that organism is really
fascinating space. How, how hard is it? Do you think to grow in your own network and maybe
what kind of neural networks are more amenable to this kind of idea than others? I've seen quite a
bit of work on recurrent neural networks. Is there some architectures that are friendlier than others?
And is, is this just a fun small scale set of experiments? Or do you have hope that we can
be able to grow powerful neural networks? I think we can. And most of the work up to now
is taking architectures that already exist that humans have designed and try to optimize them
further. And, and you can totally do that. A few years ago, we did an experiment. We took a winner
of the image captioning competition and the architecture and just broken into pieces and
took the pieces. And that was our search base. See if you can do better. And we indeed could,
15% better performance by just searching around the network design that humans had come up with,
for your venals and others. So, but that's starting from a point of point that humans have produced.
But we could do something more generally. It doesn't have to be that kind of network.
The hard part is just a couple of challenges. One of them is to define the search base. What
are your elements and how you put them together? And the space is just really, really big. So,
you have to somehow constrain it and have some hunch of what will work. Because otherwise,
everything is possible. And another challenge is that in order to evaluate how good your design is,
you have to train it. I mean, you have to actually try it out. And that's currently very
expensive. I mean, deep learning networks may take days to train. Well, imagine you're having
a population of 100 and have to run it for 100 generations. It's not yet quite feasible computationally.
It will be, but also there's a large carbon footprint and all that. I mean, we are using a
lot of computation for doing it. So, intelligent methods. And intelligent, I mean, we have to do
some science in order to figure out what the right representations are and right operators are.
And how do we evaluate them without having to fully train them? And that is where the
current research is and we're making progress on all those fronts. So, yes, there are certain
architectures that are more amenable to that approach. But also, I think we can create our own
architecture and all representations that are even better at that.
And do you think it's possible to do a tiny baby network that grows into something that
can do state-of-the-art on like even the simple data set like MNIST and just like it just grows
into a gigantic monster that's the world's greatest handwriting recognition system?
Yeah, there are approaches like that. Esteban Real and Cochlear, for instance,
have worked on evolving a smaller network and then systematically expanding it to a larger one.
Your elements are already there and scaling it up will just give you more power.
So, again, evolution gives you that starting point. And then there's a mechanism
that gives you the final result and a very powerful approach.
But you could also simulate the actual growth process. And like I said before,
evolving a starting point and then evolving or training the network, there's not that much
work that's been done on that yet. We need some kind of a simulation environment. So,
the interactions at will, the supervised environment, it's not as easily usable here.
Sorry, the interaction between neural networks?
Yeah, the neural networks that you're creating, interacting with the world
and learning from these sequences of interactions, perhaps communication with others.
That's awesome.
We would like to get there, but just the task of simulating something at that level is very hard.
It's very difficult. I love the idea. I mean, one of the powerful things about
evolution on Earth is the predators and prey emerged. And like there's just like,
there's bigger fish and smaller fish. And it's fascinating to think that you could have neural
networks competing against each other and one neural network being able to destroy another one.
There's like wars of neural networks competing to solve the MNIST problem. I don't know.
Yeah, yeah. Oh, totally. Yeah, yeah. And we actually simulated also that
pair of the prey. And it was interesting what happened there with Padminaradzic Paul and did
this on K. Holcomb as a zoologist. So, we had, again, we had simulated hyenas and simulated
zebras. And initially, the hyenas just tried to hunt them. And when they actually stumbled upon
the zebra, they ate it and were happy. And then the zebras learned to escape and the hyenas learned to
team up and actually two of them approached in different directions. And now the zebras,
then next step, they generated a behavior where they split in different directions,
just like actually gazelles do when they are being hunted. They confused the predator by
going in different directions. That emerged. And then more hyenas joined and kind of circled them.
And then when they circled them, they could actually herd the zebras together and eat multiple
zebras. So, there was like an arms race of predators and prey. And they gradually developed
more complex behaviors, some of which we actually do see in nature. And this kind of co-evolution,
that's competitive co-evolution. It's a fascinating topic because there's a promise or possibility
that you will discover something new that you don't already know. You didn't build it in.
It came from this arms race. It's hard to keep the arms race going. It's hard to have
reads enough simulation that supports all of these complex behaviors. But at least for several
steps, we've already seen it in the spread of the prey scenario. Yeah.
First of all, it's fascinating to think about this context in terms of evolving architectures.
So, I've studied Tesla autopilot for a long time. It's one particular implementation of an AI system
that's operating in the real world. I find it fascinating because of the scale at which it's
used out in the real world. And I'm not sure if you're familiar with that system much, but
you know, under Kapathi leads that team on the machine learning side. And there's a multi-task
network, multi-headed network where there's a core, but it's trained on particular tasks and
there's a bunch of different heads that are trained on that. Is there some lessons from
evolutionary computation or neuro-evolution that could be applied to this kind of
multi-headed beast that's operating in the real world? Yes. It's a very good problem for neuro-evolution.
And the reason is that when you have multiple tasks, they support each other. So, let's say you're
learning to classify X-ray images to different pathologies. So, you have one task is to classify
this disease and another one, this disease, another one, this one. And when you're learning
from one disease, that forces certain kinds of internal representations and embeddings.
And they can serve as a helpful starting point for the other tasks. So, you are combining the
wisdom of multiple tasks into these representations. And it turns out that you can do better in each of
these tasks when you are learning simultaneously other tasks than you would by one task alone.
Which is a fascinating idea in itself, yeah. Yes. And people do that all the time. I mean,
you use knowledge of domains that you know in new domains. And certainly, no network can do that.
Where neuro-evolution comes in is that what's the best way to combine these tasks? Now, there's
architectural design that allow you to decide where and how the embeddings, the internal
representations are combined and how much you combine them. And there's quite a bit of research
on that. And my team, Elliot Mayersons, worked on that. In particular, what is a good internal
representation that supports multiple tasks? And we're getting to understand how that's
constructed and what's in it so that it is in a space that supports multiple different heads,
like you said. And that, I think, is fundamentally how biological intelligence works as well.
You don't build a representation just for one task. You try to build something that's general,
not only so that you can do better in one task or multiple tasks, but also future tasks and future
challenges. So you learn the structure of the world and that helps you in all kinds of future
future challenges. And so you try to design a representation that will support an arbitrary
set of tasks in a particular sort of class of problem. Yeah. And also, it turns out,
and that's, again, the surprise that Elliot found was that those tasks don't have to be very related.
You can learn to do better vision by learning language or better language by learning about
DNA structure. Somehow the world... Yeah, it rhymes. The world rhymes, even if it's very
disparate fields. I mean, on that small topic, let me ask you, because you've also, on the
competition in your science side, you worked on both language and vision.
What's the connection between the two? What's more... Maybe there's a bunch of ways to ask this,
but what's more difficult to build from an engineering perspective and evolutionary
perspective, the human language system, or the human vision system, or the equivalent of in the AI
space, language and vision, or is it the best, is the multitask idea that you're speaking to,
that they need to be deeply integrated? Yeah, absolutely. Learning both at the same time,
I think, is a fascinating direction in the future. So you have data sets where there's visual
component as well as verbal descriptions, for instance, and that way you can learn a deeper
representation, a more useful representation for both. But it's still an interesting question of
which one is easier. I mean, recognizing objects or even understanding sentences, that's
relatively possible, but where it becomes... Where the challenges are is to understand the world,
like the visual world, the 3D, what are the objects doing and predicting what will happen,
the relationships. That's what makes vision difficult, and language, obviously,
it's what is being said, what the meaning is. And the meaning doesn't stop at who did what to whom.
There are goals and plans and themes, and eventually you have to understand the entire
human society and history in order to understand the sentence very much fully. There are plenty
of examples of those kind of short sentences when you bring in all the world knowledge to
understand it, and that's the big challenge. Now, we are far from that, but even just bringing in
the visual world together with the sentence will give you already a lot deeper understanding
of what's happening. And I think that that's where we're going very soon. I mean, we've had ImageNet
for a long time, and now we have all these text collections, but having both together and then
learning a semantic understanding of what is happening, I think that will be the next step
in the next few years. Yeah, you're starting to see that with all the work with Transformers,
where the AI community is starting to dip their toe into the idea of having language models that
are now doing stuff with images, with vision, and then connecting the two. I mean, right now,
it's like these little explorations, we're literally dipping the toe in, but maybe at some
point we'll just dive into the pool, and it'll just be all seen as the same thing. I do still
wonder what's more fundamental, whether vision is, whether we don't think about vision correctly.
Maybe the fact, because we're humans and we see things as beautiful and so on,
and because we have cameras that take in pixels as a 2D image, that we don't sufficiently think
about vision as language. Maybe Chomsky is right all along, that vision is fundamental to everything,
to even cognition, to even consciousness. The base layer is all language, not necessarily
like English, but some weird abstract representation, the linguistic representation.
Yeah. Well, earlier we talked about the social structures, and that may be what's underlying
the language, and that's the more fundamental part, and language has been added on top of that.
Language emerges from the social interaction. Yeah, that's a very good guess. We are visual
animals, though. A lot of the brain is dedicated to vision, and also when we think about various
abstract concepts, we usually reduce that to vision and images. We go to a whiteboard, you draw
pictures of very abstract concepts. We tend to resort to that quite a bit, and that's a fundamental
representation. It's probably possible that it predated language, even animals don't talk,
but they certainly do have vision. Language is interesting development. From mastication,
from eating, you develop an organ that actually can produce sound to manipulate them.
Maybe that was an accident. Maybe that was something that was available, and then allowed us to
do the communication. Or maybe it was gestures. Sign language could have been an original proto
language. We don't quite know, but the language is more fundamental than the medium in which it's
communicated, and I think that it comes from those representations. Now, in current world,
they are so strongly integrated. It's really hard to say which one is fundamental. You look at the
brain structures and even visual cortex, which is supposed to be very much just vision. Well,
if you are thinking of semantic concepts, if you're thinking of language, visual cortex lights
up. It's still useful, even for language computations. There are common structures
underlying them. Utilize what you need. When you are understanding a scene, you're understanding
relationships. Well, that's not so far from understanding relationships between words and
concepts. I think that that's how they are integrated. Yeah, and there's dreams. Once
they close our eyes, there's still a world in there, somehow operating, and somehow possibly
the visual system somehow integrated into all of it. I tend to enjoy thinking about aliens and
thinking about the sad thing to me about extraterrestrial intelligent life, that if it was,
if it visited us here on Earth, or if we came on Mars, or maybe in another solar system,
another galaxy one day, that us humans would not be able to detect it or communicate with it,
or appreciate, like, it'd be right in front of our nose and we were too
self-obsessed to see it. Not self-obsessed, but our tools, our frameworks of thinking would
not detect it as a good movie arrival, and so on. Where Stephen Wolfram and his son, I think,
were part of developing this alien language of how aliens would communicate with humans.
Do you ever think about that kind of stuff where, if humans and aliens would be able to
communicate with each other, like if we met each other at some, okay, we could do SETI,
which is communicating from across a very big distance, but also just us, you know,
if you did a podcast with an alien, do you think we'd be able to find a common language
and a common methodology of communication? I think, from a computational perspective,
the way to ask that is, you have very fundamentally different creatures,
agents that are created. Would they be able to find a common language?
Yes, I do think about that. I mean, I think a lot of people who are in computing and AI in
particular, they got into it because they were fascinated with science fiction and all of these
options. I mean, Star Trek generated all kinds of devices that we have now. They envision it first,
and it's a great motivator to think about things like that. And again, being a computational
scientist and trying to build intelligent agents, what I would like to do is have a simulation
where the agents actually evolve communication, not just communication. People have done that many
times that they communicate, they signal, and so on, but actually develop a language.
And language means grammar. It means all these social structures and on top of that,
grammatical structures. And we do it under various conditions and actually try to identify what
conditions are necessary for it to come out. And then we can start asking that kind of questions.
Are those languages that emerge in those different simulated environments,
are they understandable to us? Can we somehow make a translation? We can make it a concrete question.
So machine translation of evolved languages. And so languages that evolve come up with,
can we translate, like I have a Google translate for the evolved languages?
Yes. And if we do that enough, we have perhaps an idea what an alien language might be like,
the space of where those languages can be. Because we can set up their environment differently.
It doesn't need to be gravity. You can have all kinds of societies can be different. They may
have no predators. Everybody's a predator, all kinds of situations. And then see what the space
possibly is where those languages are and what the difficulties are. They'll be really good actually
to do that before the aliens come here. Yes, it's good practice. On the similar connection,
you can think of AI systems as aliens. Is there a ways to evolve a communication scheme for,
there's a field you can call like explainable AI for AI systems to be able to communicate?
So you evolve a bunch of agents, but for some of them to be able to talk to you
also. So to evolve a way for agents to be able to communicate about their world to us humans.
Do you think that there's possible mechanisms for doing that?
We can certainly try. And if it's an evolution competition system, for instance, you reward
those solutions that are actually functional, that communication makes sense. It allows us to
together again achieve common goals. I think it's possible. But even from that paper that you
mentioned, the anecdotes, it's quite likely also that the agents learn to, you know, lie
and fake and do all kinds of things like that. We see that in even very low level,
like bacterial evolution. There are cheaters. And who's to say that what they say is actually what
they think. But that's one thing that there would have to be some common goal so that we can evaluate
whether that communication is at least useful. You know, they may be saying things just to
make us feel good or get us to do whatever we want, whatever, not turn them off or something.
So we would have to understand their internal representations much better to really make sure
that that translation is critical. But it can be useful. And I think it's possible to do that.
There are examples where visualizations are automatically created so that we can look
into the system and the language is not that far from it. I mean, it is a way of communicating
and logging what you're doing in some interpretable way. I think a fascinating topic, yeah, to do
that. You make me realize that it's a good scientific question whether lying is an
effective mechanism for integrating yourself and succeeding in a social network in a social,
in a world that is social. I tend to believe that honesty and love are evolutionary advantages
in an environment where there's a network of intelligent agents. But it's also very possible
that dishonesty and manipulation and even, you know, violence, all those kinds of things might
be more beneficial. That's the old open question about good versus evil. But I tend to, I mean,
I don't know if it's a hopeful, maybe I'm delusional, but it feels like karma is a thing,
which is like long term, the agents, they're just kind to others sometimes for no reason
will do better in a society that's not highly constrained on resources.
So people start getting weird and evil towards each other and bad when the resources are very
low relative to the needs of the populace, especially at the basic level like survival,
shelter, food, all those kinds of things. But I tend to believe that once you have those things
established, then, well, not to believe, I guess I hope that AI systems will be honest.
But it's fun. It's scary to think about the Turing test, you know, AI systems that will
eventually pass the Turing test will be ones that are exceptionally good at lying. That's a
terrifying concept. I mean, I don't know. First of all, sort of from somebody who studied language
and obviously are not just a world expert in AI, but somebody who dreams about the future of the
field. Do you hope, do you think there will be human level or super human level intelligences
in the future that we eventually build? Well, definitely hope that we can get there. One,
I think, important perspective is that we are building AI to help us, that it is still like
cars or language or communication. AI will help us be more productive. And that is always a condition.
It's not something that we build and let run and it becomes an entity of its own that doesn't care
about us. Now, of course, really find the future, maybe that might be possible, but not in the
foreseeable future when we are building it. And therefore, we are always in a position of limiting
what it can or cannot do. And your point about lying is very interesting. Even in this high
in a society, for instance, when a number of these high in us band together and they take
a risk and steal the kill, there are always high in us that hang back and don't participate in that
risky behavior, but they walk in later and join the party after the kill. And there are even some
that may be ineffective and cause others to have harm. And like I said, even bacteria cheat. And
we see in biology, there's always some element of opportunity. I think that this is because if
you have a society in order for society to be effective, you have to have this cooperation
and you have to have trust. And if you have enough of agents who are able to trust each other,
you can achieve a lot more. But if you have trust, you also have opportunity for cheaters
and liars. And I don't think that's ever going to go away. There will be hopefully a minority
so that they don't get in the way. And we studied in these high in assimilations, like what the
like what the proportion needs to be before it is no longer functional. And you can point out
that you can tolerate a few cheaters and a few liars and the society can still function.
And that's probably going to happen when we build these systems that autonomously learn
that the really successful ones are honest because that's the best way of getting things done.
But there probably are also intelligent agents that find that they can achieve their goals by
bending the rules or cheating. So there could be a huge benefit to
as opposed to having fixed AI systems, say we build an AGI system and deploying millions of them,
that are exactly the same. There might be a huge benefit to introducing sort of from like an
evolution, competition perspective, a lot of variation, sort of like diversity in all its
forms is beneficial, even if some people are assholes or some robots are assholes. So like it's
beneficial to have that because you can't always and prior I know what's good, what's bad, but
there's that that's a fascinating diversity is the bread and butter. I mean, if you're running
an evolution, you see diversity is the one fundamental thing you have to have. And absolutely,
also, it's not always good diversity. It may be something that can be destructive. We had in
these high enough simulations, we have high enough that just are suicidal, basically, they just run
and get killed. But they form the basis of those who actually are really fast, but stop before they
get killed and eventually turn into this mob. So there might be something useful there if it's
recombined with something else. So I think that as long as we can tolerate some of that, it may
turn into something better. You may change the rules because it's so much more efficient to do
something that was actually against the rules before. And we've seen society change over time
quite a bit along those lines that there were rules in society that we don't believe are fair
anymore, even though they were run, you know, considered proper behavior before. So things
are changing. And I think that in that sense, I think it's a good idea to be able to tolerate
some of that, some of that cheating, because eventually we might turn into something better.
So yeah, I think this is a message to the trolls and the assholes of the internet that you too
have a beautiful purpose in this human ecosystem. So I appreciate you very much.
In modern quantities, yeah.
In modern quantities. So there's a whole field of artificial life. I don't know if you're connected
to this field, if you pay attention. Do you think about this kind of thing? Is there impressive
demonstration to you of artificial life? Do you think of the agency you work with in the
evolutionary computation perspective as life? And where do you think this is headed? Like,
is there interesting systems that will be creating more and more that make us redefine,
maybe rethink about the nature of life? Different levels of definition and goals there.
I mean, at some level, artificial life can be considered multi-agent systems that build a
society that again, achieves a goal. And it might be robots that go into a building and clean it up
or after earthquake or something. You can think of that as an artificial life problem, in some sense.
Or you can really think of it artificial life as a simulation of life and a tool to understand
what life is and how life evolved on Earth. And like I said, in artificial life conference,
there are branches of that conference sessions of people who really worry about molecular designs
and the start of life. Like I said, primordial soup where eventually you get something self-replicating
and they're really trying to build that. So it's a whole range of topics. And I think that
artificial life is a great tool to understand life. And there are questions like sustainability,
species, we're losing species. How bad is it? Is it natural? Is there a tipping point?
And where are we going? I mean, like the Hyena evolution, we may have understood that there's
a pivotal point in their evolution. They discovered cooperation and coordination.
You know, artificial life simulations can identify that and maybe encourage things like that.
And also, societies can be seen as a form of life itself. I mean, we're not talking about biological
evolution or evolution of societies. Maybe some of the same phenomena emerge in that domain and
having artificial life simulations and understanding could help us build better societies.
Yeah. And thinking from a main perspective from Richard Dawkins, that maybe the organisms,
ideas of the organisms, not the humans in these societies, that from, it's almost like reframing
what is exactly evolving. Maybe the interesting, the humans aren't the interesting thing as the
contents of our minds is the interesting thing. And that's what's multiplying. And that's actually
multiplying and evolving at a much faster time scale. And that maybe has more power on the
trajectory of life on earth than this biological evolution, is the evolution of these ideas.
Yes. And it's fascinating, I guess, before that we can keep up somehow biologically.
We've evolved to a point where we can keep up with this meme evolution, literature,
you know, internet. We understand DNA and we understand fundamental particles. We didn't
start that way a thousand years ago. And we haven't evolved biologically very much, but
somehow our minds are able to extend. And therefore, AI can be seen also as one such
step that we created. And it's our tool. And it's part of that meme evolution that we created,
even if our biological evolution does not progress as fast.
And us humans might only be able to understand so much. We're keeping up so far, or we think
we're keeping up so far, but we might need AI systems to understand, maybe like
the physics of the universe is operating, like a string theory, maybe it's operating on
much higher dimensions. Maybe we're totally, because of our cognitive limitations, they're
not able to truly internalize the way this world works. And so we're running up against
the limitation of our own minds and we have to create these next level organisms like AI systems
that would be able to understand much deeper, like really understand what it means to live in a
multi-dimensional world that's outside of the four dimensions, the three of space and
one of time. Translation. And generally, we can deal with the world, even if you don't
understand all the details, we can use computers, even though we don't, most of us don't know all
the structures underneath or drive a car. I mean, there are many components, especially new cars,
that you don't quite fully know, but you have the interface, you have an abstraction of it
that allows you to operate it and utilize it. And I think that that's, that's perfectly
adequate and we can build on it. And AI can be a play a similar role. I have to ask about
beautiful artificial life systems or evolution computation systems, cellular automata to me,
like, I remember it was, is a game changer for me early on in life when I saw Conway's game of
life who recently passed away, unfortunately. It's beautiful how much complexity can emerge
from such simple rules. I just don't, somehow that simplicity is such a powerful illustration
and also humbling because it feels like I personally, from my perspective, understand
almost nothing about this world because, because like my intuition fails completely how complexity
can emerge from such simplicity. Like my intuition fails, I think, is the biggest problem I have.
Do you find systems like that beautiful? Is there, do you, do you think about cellular
automata? Because cellular automata don't really have, in many other artificial life systems,
don't necessarily have an objective? Maybe, maybe that's a wrong way to say it. It's almost like
it's just evolving and creating. And there's not even a good definition of what it means to create
something complex and interesting and surprising. All those words that you said.
Is there some of those systems that you find beautiful? Yeah, yeah. And similarly, evolution
does not have a goal. It is responding to current situation and survival then
creates more complexity. And therefore, we have something that we perceive as progress,
but that's not what evolution is inherently said to do. And yeah, that's really fascinating
why how, how a simple set of rules or simple mappings can, from, from how, from such simple mapping,
complexity can emerge. So it's a question of emergence and self-organization. And the game of life
is one of the simplest ones and very visual. And therefore, it drives home the point that it's
possible that non-linear interactions and, and this kinds of complexity can emerge from them.
And biology and evolution is along the same lines. We have simple representations. DNA,
if you really think of it, it's not that complex. It's a long sequence of them. There's lots of
them, but it's a very simple representation. And similarly, evolution, computation, whatever
string or tree representation we have and the operations, you know, the amount of code that's
required to manipulate those is really, really little. And of course, game of life even less.
So how complexity emerges from such simple principles, that's, that's absolutely fascinating.
The challenge is to be able to control it and guide it and direct it so that it becomes useful.
And like game of life is fascinating to look at and, and evolution, all the forms that come out is
fascinating. But can we actually make it useful for us? And efficient, because if you actually think
about each of the cells in the game of life as a living organism, there's a lot of death that has
to happen to create anything interesting. And so I guess the questions for us humans that are mortal
and then life ends quickly, we want to kind of hurry up and make sure we make sure we take evolution.
The trajectory that is a little bit more efficient than the alternatives.
And that touches upon something we talked about earlier, that evolution computation is very
impatient. We had, we have a goal, we want it right away versus biology has a lot of time
and deep, deep time and weak pressure and large populations. One great example of this is the
novelty search. So evolution and computation, where you don't actually specify a fitness goal,
something that is your actual thing that you want, but you just reward solutions that are
different from what you've seen before. Nothing else. And you know what, you actually discover
things that are interesting and useful that way. Ken Stamley and Joel Lehmann did this one study
where they actually tried to evolve walking behavior on robots. And that's actually, we talked
about earlier where your robot actually failed in all kinds of ways and eventually discovered
something that was very efficient walk. And it was because they rewarded things that were different
that you were able to discover something. And I think that this is crucial because in order to
be really different from what you already have, you have to utilize what is there in the domain
to create something really different. So you have encoded the fundamentals of your world
and then you make changes to those fundamentals you get further away. So that's probably what's
happening in these systems of emergence, that the fundamentals are there. And when you follow
those fundamentals, you get into points and some of those are actually interesting and useful.
No, even in that robotic walker simulation, there was a large set of garbage. But among
them, there were some of these gems. And then those are the ones that somehow you have to
outside recognize and make useful. But these kind of productive systems, if you code them the right
kind of principles, I think that they that encode the structure of the domain, then you will get
to these solutions and the discoveries. It feels like that might also be a good way to live life.
So let me ask, do you have advice for young people today about how to live life or how to
succeed in their career, or forget career, just succeed in life from an evolutionary
computation perspective? Yes. Yes, definitely. Explore. Diversity. Exploration. And individuals
take classes in music, history, philosophy, you know, math, engineering, see connections between
them. Travel, you know, learn a language. I mean, all this diversity is fascinating,
and we have it at our fingertips today. It's possible. You have to make a bit of an effort,
because it's not easy. But the rewards are wonderful. Yeah, there's something interesting
about an objective function of new experiences. So try to figure out, I mean, what is the
maximally new experience I could have today? And that, so like that novelty, optimizing
for novelty for some period of time, might be a very interesting way to sort of maximally expand
the sets of experiences you had, and then ground from that perspective,
like what you, what will be the most fulfilling trajectory through life. Of course, the flip side
of that is where I come from. Again, maybe Russian, I don't know. But the choice has a
choice is a has a detrimental effect, I think, from, at least from my mind, where scarcity
is an has an empowering effect. So if I sort of, if I have very little of something, and only one
of that something, I will appreciate it deeply. Until I came to Texas recently, and I've been
picking out on delicious, incredible meat, I've been fasting a lot. So I need to do that again.
But when you fast for a few days, that the first taste of a food is incredible. So the downside
of exploration is that somehow, maybe you can correct me, but somehow you don't get to experience
deeply any one of the particular moments. But that could be a psychology thing. That could be
just a very human peculiar flaw. Yeah, I didn't mean that you superficially explore. I mean, you
can explore deeply. Yeah. So you don't have to explore 100 things. But maybe a few topics where
you can take a deep enough time dive that you gain an understanding. You yourself have to decide
at some point that this is deep enough. And I, I, I, I've obtained what I can from this topic.
And now it's time to move on. And that might take years. People sometimes switch careers.
And they may stay on some career for a decade and switch to another one. You can do it. You're
not pretty determined to stay where you are. But, you know, in order to achieve something,
you know, 10,000 hours makes, you need 10,000 hours to become an expert on something. So you
don't have to become an expert, but they even develop an understanding and gain the experience
that you can use later. You probably have to spend, like I said, it's not easy,
you got to spend some effort on it. Now, also at some point, then, when you have this diversity
and you have these experiences, exploration, you may want to, you may find something that you
can't stay away from. Like for us, it was computers, it was AI, it was, you know, that you, I just
have to do it, you know, and I, you know, and then we'll, it will take decades, maybe, and you are
pursuing it, because you figure it out that this is really exciting, and you can bring in your
experiences. And there's nothing wrong with that either. But you asked, what's the advice for young
people, you know, that's the exploration part. And then beyond that, after that exploration,
you actually can focus and build a career. And, you know, even there, you can switch multiple
times. But, but I think the diversity exploration is fundamental to having a successful career,
as is concentration and spending the effort where it matters. But you are in better position to
make the choice when you have done your homework. So exploration precedes commitment, but both are
beautiful. So again, from an evolutionary computation perspective, we'll look at all the agents that
had to die in order to come up with different solutions in simulation. What do you think
from that individual agent's perspective is the meaning of it all? So for us humans, you're just
one agent who's going to be dead, unfortunately, one day too soon. What do you think is the why
of why that agent came to be, and eventually will be no more? Is there meaning to it all?
Yeah. In evolution, there is meaning. Everything is a potential direction. Everything is a
potential stepping stone. Not all of them are going to work out. Some of them are foundations for
further improvement. And even those that are perhaps going to die out, where potential
lineages, potential solutions, in biology, we see a lot of species die off naturally,
and, you know, like the dinosaurs. I mean, they were really good solutions for a while,
but then it didn't turn out to be not such a good solution in the long term. When there's an
environmental change, you have to have diversity. Some other solutions become better. It doesn't
mean that there was an attempt. It didn't quite work out or last, but there are still dinosaurs
among us, at least their relatives, and they may one day again be useful. Who knows? So from an
individual's perspective, you've got to think of a bigger picture, that it is a huge engine that is
innovative, and these elements are all part of it, potential innovations on their own, and also
as raw material, perhaps, or stepping stones for other things that could come after.
But it still feels, from an individual perspective, that I matter a lot. But even if I'm just a little
coggin in the giant machine, is that just a silly human notion in individualistic society,
and they should let go of that? Do you find beauty in being part of the giant machine?
Yeah, I think it's meaningful. I think it adds purpose to your life, that you are part of something
bigger. That said, do you ponder your individual agent's mortality? Do you think about
death? Do you fear death? Well, certainly more now than when I was a
youngster, and it's skydiving and perk lighting and all these things.
You've become wiser. There is a reason for this life arc that younger folks are more fearless,
in many ways, that's part of the exploration. They are the individuals who think,
hmm, I wonder what's over those mountains, or what if I go really far in that ocean,
what would I find? I mean, older folks don't necessarily think that way, but younger do,
and it's kind of counterintuitive. But logically, it's like, you have limited
amount of time, what can you do with it that matters? So you try to, you have done your exploration,
you committed to certain direction, and you become an expert perhaps in it, what can I do
that matters with the limited resources that I have? That's how I think a lot of people,
myself included, start thinking later on in their career.
And like you said, leave a bit of a trace and a bit of an impact, even though after the agent
is gone. Yeah, that's the goal. Well, this was a fascinating conversation. I don't think there's
a better way to end it. Thank you so much. So first of all, I'm very inspired of how vibrant
the community at UT Austin in Austin is. It's really exciting for me to see it. And this whole
field seems like profound philosophically, but also the path forward for the artificial intelligence
community. So thank you so much for explaining so many cool things to me today, and for wasting
all of your valuable time with me. Oh, it was a pleasure. Thanks. I appreciate it. Thanks for
listening to this conversation with Rhisto McAlignan. And thank you to the Jordan Harbinger show,
Grammarly, Bell Campo, and Indeed. Check them out in the description to support this podcast.
And now let me leave you some words from Carl Sagan.
Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next
time.