Why Auto-Evo is Dead

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:04 pm

I really am not getting my point across, am I...

The doesn't need to be a way of working out what is a good mutation or a bad mutation, there just needs to be a mutation. This mutation could be anything about the creature changing.

Let's remove evolution from all this a moment, we just have two creatures, one is faster than the other.

They are running from a predator. The slower one has the higher chance of dying - if the predator catches up with either of them, it will be the one at the back that will get eaten, that should happen if everything else is programmed correctly.

The computer doesn't need to know that being slower is a disadvantage, this will happen anyway.

So why do we need to overcomplicate things? Just make it random.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:12 pm

The Uteen wrote:: I really am not getting my point across, am I...

The doesn't need to be a way of working out what is a good mutation or a bad mutation, there just needs to be a mutation. This mutation could be anything about the creature changing.

Let's remove evolution from all this a moment, we just have two creatures, one is faster than the other.

They are running from a predator. The slower one has the higher chance of dying - if the predator catches up with either of them, it will be the one at the back that will get eaten, that should happen if everything else is programmed correctly.

The computer doesn't need to know that being slower is a disadvantage, this will happen anyway.

So why do we need to overcomplicate things? Just make it random.

What you're suggesting here is that we simulate every single organism on the planet simultaneously? It seems so. We simply can't do it. It's blasphemously overcomplex, and even modern supercomputers probably couldn't run it.
We need to make evolution look complex, but be as simple as possible.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:55 pm

Can share codes be used for this? I mean, maybe every X years, the game goes and makes a few edits to the share codes of all the organisms within your general area. So, if you are a tribal race that has only explored a chunk of one of your planet's continents, only the organisms near you would ever be affected. You would still encounter new organisms in places you haven't explored, but they would just be sort of... frozen in their form until you find them, and when you do find them, the changes begin.

However, this leaves a few enormous issues:

- Could we make it so that if you only live in one tiny part of the planet for four billion years and the organisms near you evolve into their modern state, and you decide to explore the rest of the planet, those new organisms you discover aren't all dinosaurs and other ancient beings?

-Just HOW would we make the computer edit the share codes?

-How do we make the game spawn the newly discovered organisms in the unexplored regions of the world, and make them in a way that makes sense? (Example: keeping the game from spawning billy goats at the bottom of the ocean.)

-How would we make the game create any organisms at all?

-How do we keep the game from automatically removing an organism's heart/brain/other vital organ in the process of editing it's share code?

In the end, this would just keep evolution from being too taxing on the computer. It would keep us a bit closer to Darwanian evolution, and it achieves the goal of creating the illusion of evolution, but I really extremely doubt that it is possible to code.

And I didn't explain how it would work in code, so my point is invalid.

Learner Posts : 144 Reputation : 1 Join date : 2010-12-03

The Uteen wrote:: I really am not getting my point across, am I...

The doesn't need to be a way of working out what is a good mutation or a bad mutation, there just needs to be a mutation. This mutation could be anything about the creature changing.

Let's remove evolution from all this a moment, we just have two creatures, one is faster than the other.

They are running from a predator. The slower one has the higher chance of dying - if the predator catches up with either of them, it will be the one at the back that will get eaten, that should happen if everything else is programmed correctly.

The computer doesn't need to know that being slower is a disadvantage, this will happen anyway.

So why do we need to overcomplicate things? Just make it random.

What you just described would be a way of making a computer knowing what is a "good" and a "bad" mutation. Thus...

@invaderzim: all those issues appear to me as infinitely less complex than figuring out automated evolution.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:06 pm

Quote :: What you just described would be a way of making a computer knowing what is a "good" and a "bad" mutation. Thus...

But it only works if every single organism is simulated, and that's NOT going to do good.

Invader: Your implementation could work, but I see huge problems in two things: how would the game generate organisms suited to the environment and all. Even if we could manage to do that properly, then there's the problem of generating simple creatures after billions of years of evolution. Other problems aren't that hard.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:06 am

Not to mention the fact that something has to determine the speed in the first place.

Which is all well and good in an editor-centric model, whereby you make basic assumptions as to how everything fits together, after it has been fit together manually by an external force (the player)

But you can't do the same the other way.

You can't just create an algorithm that will spit out spiders with helium sacks that help them float up to their favorite fruit in the trees at the tops of mountains, for example.

However, an editor will allow us to create such organisms ourselves.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:26 am

The Uteen wrote:: I really am not getting my point across, am I...

The doesn't need to be a way of working out what is a good mutation or a bad mutation, there just needs to be a mutation. This mutation could be anything about the creature changing.

Let's remove evolution from all this a moment, we just have two creatures, one is faster than the other.

They are running from a predator. The slower one has the higher chance of dying - if the predator catches up with either of them, it will be the one at the back that will get eaten, that should happen if everything else is programmed correctly.

The computer doesn't need to know that being slower is a disadvantage, this will happen anyway.

So why do we need to overcomplicate things? Just make it random.

Okay,l lets take the example of adding fur to a creature first.

The computer has to know just how adding fur will affect the creature.

even if it is something simple like "warmth = furSurfaceAre/creatureTotalSurfaceArea", this all still needs to be calculated.

And for the creatures head height due to a longer neck example:

We still need to calculate the height the head sits, weither it can reach higher because the neck doesn't normally angle vertically, weither the creature has enough bend in it's joints to reach a little further, whatever.

And the winner, the speed of a creature:

Even if a faster creature will survive better, you still have to calculate speed.

You have to get each leg, analyze the displacement each leg can produce per second, cross reference that with different gaits, to determine the final speed.

And you can't just get away with a speed variable that gets modified directly, because then nothing on the creature visually changes. you can have a slug with a speed value of OVER 9000.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:27 am

~sciocont wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:: I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

I had read every single post, and have been reading this thread for the last four days.
If you have a better auto-evo idea, please, post it.

You have got to be kidding me.

Yes, every single post : P
Is it so hard to believe?

Yes, because he just explained why that's too complex.
What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see, it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

"Ugly creature syndrome"

Such systems just aren't going to create the vertebrates we see today from scratch.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:31 am

Tenebrarum wrote:: Okay, can I make a suggestion?

Everything that happens on screen should not be part of auto-evo, with the exception of the induvidual you control. All induvidual creatures will have no effect on their survival. Their purpose is gameplay, not auto-evo. We are not calculating a number of organisms. We are calculating likelyhood of survival. The game may keep track of how many survive and how many die, and consider these in the equation, but this is not the defining factor of survival, and weird as that sounds. If auto-evo only kicks in with each jump forward made, and only uses the gameplay sessions as data-collection beforehand, this should cut down on calculations and simplify the whole mess, right? Or am I being stupid again?

Also, Darkgamma: Really? He just explains in detail why Darwinian is impossible and you just blurt that out? Even if that's your honest opinion, did you really expect that to go over well?

Although i support such a system, (a system whereby changes are made based on the actions of the player, if i read that correctly..) many people have complained that since this is tuned to the player's actions, it is not Darwinian and therefore a work of the devil.

Also, this, nor can random edits, can work from scratch. There has to be an editor involved in the process somewhere. Even if it is what I am assuming this so called direction editor is, whereby you set the desired result (weither it is the final result or something inbetween), and the engine slowly modifies the creature to the desired result over time, across generations or whatnot.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:35 am

Tenebrarum wrote:: Now, onto another issue. Physics: I want them. Or at least something like them. Obviously we won't have an engine as complex as would be nessicary for total realism, but I want something basic. Something to show why, say, bipedal locomotion, especially the humanoid kind, is so ineffecient. Something to show agility in organisms vs. clumbsiness. Is this possible?

Precomputed: yes.

Realtime? Pushing it.

Hybrid system involving a blend of the two? Very yes.

I'm thinking something similar to the euphoria engine (Used in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. look it up.)

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:43 am

Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:45 am

US_of_Alaska wrote:: Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

That isn't the point. Regardless of methods used to alter data a basic algorithm can't just create envisioned creatures from scratch.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:47 am

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:: Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

That isn't the point. Regardless of methods used to alter data a basic algorithm can't just create envisioned creatures from scratch.

What if we start with a few base creatures? Could it evolve them?

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:03 am

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:: Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

That isn't the point. Regardless of methods used to alter data a basic algorithm can't just create envisioned creatures from scratch.

What if we start with a few base creatures? Could it evolve them?

It's quite possible, but then everything would look like modified versions of a bunch of base creatures

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:45 am

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:: Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

That isn't the point. Regardless of methods used to alter data a basic algorithm can't just create envisioned creatures from scratch.

What if we start with a few base creatures? Could it evolve them?

It's quite possible, but then everything would look like modified versions of a bunch of base creatures

The base creatures could be from your own planet (the one currently being played on). They would be related, if loosely, to the creatures (or plants) you have seen before anyway. And if we did that, the results would be different for each planet. And more suited to the environment. And we wouldn't have to make them all.

Learner Posts : 144 Reputation : 1 Join date : 2010-12-03

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:: Bashi, if you think you can come up with a working Lamarkian system, we would all be more than happy to have that in the game. It's better than no Auto-Evo.

That isn't the point. Regardless of methods used to alter data a basic algorithm can't just create envisioned creatures from scratch.

What if we start with a few base creatures? Could it evolve them?

It's quite possible, but then everything would look like modified versions of a bunch of base creatures

Perhaps the creature template idea I discussed with you on IRC?

Learner Posts : 114 Reputation : 0 Join date : 2010-07-30

Let's think for a moment. Bashi, I think we need to know what you ARE capable of doing and what you are NOT. I do believe auto-evolution is possible, there are programs that have been made to do so.
I also understand it is hard to implement, but if we don't know what your limitations are, then we can't really move forward for a solution to this problem.

Can you maybe speculate WHERE you can no longer make our auto-evolution system? What seems to be the CORE problem that indicates that auto-evo is no longer implementable?

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:01 pm

My suggestion:

1. Base Creatures. Already mentioned here. Hopefully they will be plentiful enough, maybe 5-20 for each planet, to keep from being too similer, and hopefully there will be enough of a gap between game start and sentience that these creatures will seem drastically different by the time evolution slows to insignificance. Also note that we ourselves all look like our base creatures: worms. All creatures you see here today carry the same body structure that our distant ancestors did. That's the kind of scale we're talking about.

2. Lamarkian. I don't care how unpopular this is. Lamarkian. It's far easier to get interesting and appealing results. Bashi agrees. I'm sorry realism fans, but it's this or nothing.

3. Species not induvidual. That's how we will make auto-evo. This means that evolution only takes place when the player takes a jump forward in time, and that drastically reduces the number of calculations the computer has to run. The gameplay sessions function only as entertainment for the player and maybe data collection sessions for the computer. The algorythms run on statistics, not induvidual events.

4. Let's not worry about Player-Evo just yet. Until we get an actual system for Auto-Evo, a term I will continue to use for in-game evolution regardless of it's internal workings, than direct edits will suffice for the player. Direction editor seems a little difficult, but I imagine that some of the other aspects of the Direction editor can be used to set limits and requirements on the species made by auto-evo.

Anyone?

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:26 pm

Tenebrarum wrote:: My suggestion:

1. Base Creatures. Already mentioned here. Hopefully they will be plentiful enough, maybe 5-20 for each planet, to keep from being too similer, and hopefully there will be enough of a gap between game start and sentience that these creatures will seem drastically different by the time evolution slows to insignificance. Also note that we ourselves all look like our base creatures: worms. All creatures you see here today carry the same body structure that our distant ancestors did. That's the kind of scale we're talking about.

2. Lamarkian. I don't care how unpopular this is. Lamarkian. It's far easier to get interesting and appealing results. Bashi agrees. I'm sorry realism fans, but it's this or nothing.

3. Species not induvidual. That's how we will make auto-evo. This means that evolution only takes place when the player takes a jump forward in time, and that drastically reduces the number of calculations the computer has to run. The gameplay sessions function only as entertainment for the player and maybe data collection sessions for the computer. The algorythms run on statistics, not induvidual events.

4. Let's not worry about Player-Evo just yet. Until we get an actual system for Auto-Evo, a term I will continue to use for in-game evolution regardless of it's internal workings, than direct edits will suffice for the player. Direction editor seems a little difficult, but I imagine that some of the other aspects of the Direction editor can be used to set limits and requirements on the species made by auto-evo.

Anyone?

I think that we can combine some different approaches here to achieve the best results.
I'd like to do some crowdsourcing, and I think it can be easily done- all we need to do is release a basic Org editor and let people play with it. Then we choose "base creatures" from what they make.

From then we can run the system we choose (be it lamarckian, editing-based, or something like what I proposed) and orgs will evolve as a species.

Crowdsourcing would really help generate interest as well as bring in a lot of ideas for base organisms.

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:32 pm

~sciocont wrote:: I think that we can combine some different approaches here to achieve the best results.
I'd like to do some crowdsourcing, and I think it can be easily done- all we need to do is release a basic Org editor and let people play with it. Then we choose "base creatures" from what they make.

From then we can run the system we choose (be it lamarckian, editing-based, or something like what I proposed) and orgs will evolve as a species.

Crowdsourcing would really help generate interest as well as bring in a lot of ideas for base organisms.

QFT

However, outside the player's species themselves, I cannot imagine how we could have editor based auto-evo.

EDIT: As in, having humans design critters.

Regular Posts : 260 Reputation : 6 Join date : 2010-08-07

I had an idea for base creatures a while back... Its an oldie so I dont expect it to work with everything that has been said...

Pezzalis wrote:

Just gonna dig up a concept I had a while back...

Its a counter theory to evolution, to explain why many mammals share homologous organs.
But the theory is total rubbish its the idea that was inspiring.

Spoiler:

Stuff in bold = Basically I have no Idea if this useful whatsoever thus it is bound to be full of holes

But this is the major kicker to this "concept":
These meshes/templates could be readily, directly or randomly modified during the evolution to create vastly different variations of the original template.
(Think say the difference between a seal, human, giraffe and a bat, they all share the same basic structure but are all very different species).

Example Pic:

Spoiler:

Thanks for reading anyway :]

Of course this still doesn't solve the link between mutation advantages and the visual changes...

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:15 pm

Pezzalis wrote:

I had an idea for base creatures a while back... Its an oldie so I dont expect it to work with everything that has been said...

Pezzalis wrote:

Just gonna dig up a concept I had a while back...

Its a counter theory to evolution, to explain why many mammals share homologous organs.
But the theory is total rubbish its the idea that was inspiring.

Spoiler:

Stuff in bold = Basically I have no Idea if this useful whatsoever thus it is bound to be full of holes

But this is the major kicker to this "concept":
These meshes/templates could be readily, directly or randomly modified during the evolution to create vastly different variations of the original template.
(Think say the difference between a seal, human, giraffe and a bat, they all share the same basic structure but are all very different species).

Example Pic:

Spoiler:

Thanks for reading anyway :]

Of course this still doesn't solve the link between mutation advantages and the visual changes...

This is basically what i'm thinking of havin the crowd do- create stock forms.
In a note about things like whales and seals, how are we going to determine swimming efficiency?

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:30 pm

~sciocont wrote:: In a note about things like whales and seals, how are we going to determine swimming efficiency?

Well, amount of energy required to swim, size of tail fin, any other fins being used for locomotion, musculature behind them, and aerodynamics are the only factors I can think of.

Regular Posts : 260 Reputation : 6 Join date : 2010-08-07

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:: In a note about things like whales and seals, how are we going to determine swimming efficiency?

Well, amount of energy required to swim, size of tail fin, any other fins being used for locomotion, musculature behind them, and aerodynamics are the only factors I can think of.

Density of the fluid, gravity of the planet, water pressure etc...
Buoyancy of the swim bladder determined by the size and weight of the gas relative to the fluid medium, weight of the organism.

If we are going with lamarckian or something similar to we will have to sieve over every factor wont we?

Subject: Re: Why Auto-Evo is Dead Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:59 pm

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:: In a note about things like whales and seals, how are we going to determine swimming efficiency?

Well, amount of energy required to swim, size of tail fin, any other fins being used for locomotion, musculature behind them, and aerodynamics are the only factors I can think of.

Yeah the problem is measuring them.

» How Auto-Evo Will Work
» NPC Auto-Evo Thread
» [ARC] Auto Evo- I think I have a solution
» EVOLUTIONS IS DEAD
» GET INVOLVED