Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
theguardian.com
Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#2I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying.
Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#3I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
It's of the same vibe as "electricity solves a maze" or "water solves a maze", imo
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#4Slime molds are also incredibly beautiful and diverse. There's a photographer whose specialty is gorgeous macro shots of slime molds. https://mymodernmet.com/barry-webb-slime-mold/
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#5Highly recommend the documentary "The Creeping Garden" for an insightful look at slime moulds and intelligence:
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#6I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
There are works using slime mold as logic gates. But i do not think any work has gotten past that to make a full on computer.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327100335.h...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136970211...
edit: it is also used as a sensor:
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-12-scientists-smartwatch-po...
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#7I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
Try this lens: dragonflies are one of nature's most incredible predators, with a 90-97% success rate of hunts. The precise data varies, but almost all more complex animals have a dramatically lower success rate. Well, so what? Harbour porpoises have a ~90% success rate, too.
It's interesting because dragonflies only have about 10,000 neurons, whereas harbour porpoises have like 14 and a half billion. Slime molds aren't meaningfully intelligent at all, but they can work out problems our primate brains had to work quite a long time to systematize. This suggests, to me at least, that dragonflies and slime molds are worthy of further consideration.
...that said, I try not to read the popsci articles about either.
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#8I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
It's of the same vibe as "electricity solves a maze" or "water solves a maze", imo
No, it's not even remotely comparable. Neither electricity nor water changes propagation rules in response to stimuli and pre-emptively employs techniques to adapt to changing conditions.
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#9I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
They're primarily exciting because they exist at a fringe of research and challenge prevailing biological dogma that specialized organs (specifically the animal kingdom's specialized organs, the nerves) are required for complex behaviors and intelligence. They are an extremely important research area for philosophy of mind and their study has only provided more and deeper mysteries.
Slime molds aren't ready-made solutions to practical problems. They're a signposted paradigm shift that indicates we need to re-evaluate some of our a prioris. Alongside advances in understanding complex behaviors in plants, slime molds represent one of the largest challenges to long-standing assumptions we've had for millenia. Unfortunately the response to recorded behaviors of adaptation, memory, learning, problem solving in things without neural structures has hilariously been to shift goal posts and underline said neural structures as a prerequisite to these things being meaningful. Silly things like "super computer slime" and pop science articles drown out the incredibly important experimental observations made about these beautiful organisms, this much I agree with.
Re: Let slime moulds do the thinking (2010)
#10I find the “super computer slime” stories that pop up every once and a while (including in academic contexts, occasionally), pretty annoying. Usually they have fun examples of problems these things can solve, but we don’t actually think they’re doing something fundamentally different from a greedy algorithm or trial and error optimization? And they’re slow as slow can be. So, not that exciting?
Try this lens: dragonflies are one of nature's most incredible predators, with a 90-97% success rate of hunts. The precise data varies, but almost all more complex animals have a dramatically lower success rate. Well, so what? Harbour porpoises have a ~90% success rate, too. It's interesting because dragonflies only have about 10,000 neurons, whereas harbour porpoises have like 14 and a half billion. Slime molds aren…
Those are some interesting numbers, but I don’t understand the connection. Slime molds are exciting because dragonflies are better hunters than porpoises despite having a millionfold fewer neurons?