Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#111

Post by globnomulous »

whatshisface wrote: post #57
isoprophlex wrote: post #3

Now these seem to be truly artificially intelligent agents. Memory, volition, autonomy, something like an OODA loop or whatever you want to call it, and a persistent environment. Very nice concept, and I'm positive the learnings can be applied to more mundane business problems, too. If only I could get management to understand that a bunch of prompts shitting into eachother isn't "cutting-edge agentic AI"... But then…

Just so you know, the English noun for things that have been learned is, "lessons."

Yup, and "ask" is a verb, God damn it, not a noun. But people in the tech world frequently use "learnings" instead of "lessons," "ask" as a noun, "like" as filler, and "downfall" when they mean "downside." Best to make your peace and move on with life.

Just FYI: that second comma is incorrect.

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#112

Post by globnomulous »

bbor wrote: post #64
ytss wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that “learnings” is also a word that could be applied in this context. It seems to me “learnings” would actually be less ambiguous than “lessons”. A lesson brings to mind a thing being taught, not just learned.

Let’s take this learning offline and circle back during the next sync, team

I just threw up.

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#113

Post by loudmax »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #12

This seems very cool - I am sceptical of the supposed benefits for "civilization" but it could at least make for some very interesting sim games. (So maybe it will be good for Civilization moreso than civilization.)

I really dig namechecking Sid Meier for the name of the project. I'm also skeptical that this project actually works as presented, but building a Civilization game off of a Minecraft engine is a deeply interesting idea.

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#115

Post by canadianfella »

caetris2 wrote: post #81
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would however be very interesting to see these kinds of agents in a commercial video game. Yes they are shallow in their perception of the game world. But they’re a big step up from the status quo.

Yes... Imagine a blog post at the same quality as this paper that framed their work and their pursuits in a way that genuinely got people excited about what could be around the corner , but with the context that frames exactly how far away they are from achieving what would be the ultimate vision.

[dead]

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#116

Post by 8338550bff96 »

grugagag wrote: post #101
ekianjo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not if we’re pretending it is any inteligent. We have been shifting the definition of what it means to be intelligent every 3 months following the advances of LLM...

So what? I’m not disputing that the immitation of intelligence is not good and it gets better and better every 3 months or so. But that doesn’t mean anything, even if it gets close to 99.9%. It is not real intlligence and it is quite limited in what it does. If LLMs solve logic or problems or chemistry problems it is solely not because it made a leap in understanding but because it was trained on a zillion examples.…

How do you distinguish between the real thing and a perfect simulation of the real thing?

You seem to be engaged in faith-based reasoning at this point. If you were born in a sensory deprivation chamber you also would have no inner world, and you wouldn't have anything at all to say about solving chemistry problems.

> Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner.

Find me one person that says something like this. "AGI is here!" hype-lords exist only as a rhetorical device for the peanut gallery to ridicule.

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#117

Post by bbor »

shagie wrote: post #53
airstrike wrote: post #6

I've thought about this a lot. I'm no philosopher or AI researcher, so I'm just spitballing... but if I were to try my hand at it, I think I'd like to start from "principles" and let systems evolve or at least be discoverable over time Principles would be things like self-preservation, food, shelter and procreating, communication and memory through a risk-reward calculation prism. Maybe establishing what is "known" v…

Evolve is another beast... but for the: "I've thought about this a lot. I'm no philosopher or AI researcher, so I'm just spitballing... but if I were to try my hand at it, I think I'd like to start from "principles" and let systems evolve or at least be discoverable over time" part, hunt up a copy of "The Society of Mind" by Minsky who was both and wrote about that idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind…

Wow, you are maybe the first person I’ve seen cite Minsky on HN, which is surprising since he’s arguably the most influential AI researcher of all time, maybe short of Turing or Pearl. To add on to the endorsement: the cover of the book is downright gorgeous, in a retro-computing way

https://d28hgpri8am2if.cloudfront.net/book_images/cvr9780671...

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#118

Post by wongarsu »

nobrains wrote: post #105
InDubioProRubio wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we need gazelles and cheetahs - many gazelle-agents getting chased towards a goal, doing the brute force work- and the constraint cheetahs chase them, evaluate them and leave them alive (memory intact) as long as they come up with better and better solutions. Basically a evolutionary algo, running on top of many agents, running simultaneously on the same hardware?

I had the opposite thought. Opposite to evolution... What if we are a CREATED (i.e. instant created, not evolved) set of humans, and evolution and other backstories have been added so that the story of our history is more believable? Could it be that humanity represents a de novo (Latin for "anew") creation, bypassing the evolutionary process? Perhaps our perception of a gradual ascent from primitive origins is a car…

We also can't rule out that Gaia or Odin made the world five minutes ago, and went to great lengths to make the world appear ancient.

It certainly makes sense if you assume that the world is a simulation. But does it actually explain anything that isn't equally well explained by assuming the simulation simulated the last 13 billion years, and evolution really happened?

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#119

Post by abecedarius »

"Non Serviam", Lem 1971:

> Professor Dobb's book is devoted to personetics, which the Finnish philosopher Eino Kaikki has called 'the cruelest science man ever created'. . . We are speaking of a discipline, after all, which, with only a small amount of exaggeration, for emphasis, has been called 'experimental theogony'. . . Nine years ago identity schemata were being developed—primitive cores of the 'linear' type—but even that generation of computers, today of historical value only, could not yet provide a field for the true creation of personoids.

> The theoretical possibility of creating sentience was divined some time ago, by Norbert Wiener, as certain passages of his last book, God and Golem, bear witness. Granted, he alluded to it in that half-facetious manner typical of him, but underlying the facetiousness were fairly grim premonitions. Wiener, however, could not have foreseen the turn that things would take twenty years later. The worst came about—in the words of Sir Donald Acker—when at MIT "the inputs were shorted to the outputs".

Re: Project Sid: Many-agent simulations toward AI civilization

#120

Post by grugagag »

8338550bff96 wrote: post #116
grugagag wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? I’m not disputing that the immitation of intelligence is not good and it gets better and better every 3 months or so. But that doesn’t mean anything, even if it gets close to 99.9%. It is not real intlligence and it is quite limited in what it does. If LLMs solve logic or problems or chemistry problems it is solely not because it made a leap in understanding but because it was trained on a zillion examples.…

How do you distinguish between the real thing and a perfect simulation of the real thing? You seem to be engaged in faith-based reasoning at this point. If you were born in a sensory deprivation chamber you also would have no inner world, and you wouldn't have anything at all to say about solving chemistry problems. > Im actually surprised so many get fooled by the hype and are ready to declare a winner. Find me one…

It’s the approach that matters. When it gets to 99.9 percent it’s pretty good to be dangerous. At that point it would be hard to tell but not impossible. As soon as a new type problem comes out it will bork on you and need retraining. It’ll be a game of catch albeit an very inneficient one. Im sure we will find a more efficient method eventually but the point still stands, what we have isn’t it.

I’ll shut up when I see leaps in reasoning without specific training on all variations possible of the problem sets.

Post reply on HN