What is Digg?79 Comments
- sishgupta, on 01/30/2008, -1/+22If the robots are swarming then we've got another problem altogether I think...
- opticsnake, on 01/30/2008, -0/+18In the mind of a bird:
"Ok there's Larry, Bob, Sue, Tim, John, Heather, and Mike.....Mike? MIKE?!!!"
"*****....I'm lost" - gregoryfenton, on 01/30/2008, -0/+10I recall learning about this sort of thing around 1995 when I was studying life, Langton's Ant and other related AI programs. I found it interesting then, and still find it interesting now :)
- rabidbob, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9They use wings dude. Wings.
- woflox, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8I, for one, welcome our swarming robot overlords.
- bosssmiley, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6"Now it turns out that the secret is for each bird to track seven others ... "
Six cardinal points + 1 direction of travel perhaps.
Good article. Left me wanting to know more. Dugg. - Lanefair, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Don't worry kids, if they always flock under attack, you'll always hit something with your shotgun.
- grimward, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Was I the only one who thought "WHEEE PROTOSS CARRIER .. FINALLY!" ? :(
- BrianBlack, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3The language of this article is very disconcerting. I dont like swarms of anything, espescially things that dont get fatigued or feel sympathy.
- PageNotFound, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4only after i read ur comment!
- Bahimiron, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4No way this could go wrong.
(We are so screwed.) - PostalBean, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Anyone who's seen a sci fi movies knows that swarms of robots are bad.
- r1y23, on 01/30/2008, -3/+6Anyone read the book "Prey" by Michael Chrichton? Basically the same concept
- doogly, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Oh goodness me, Crichton's Prey is coming to life! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prey_%28novel%29) Highly recommended read.
- emjaymj, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3"Isn't it the general rule that robots, if given enough time, will swarm all on their own?"
Ummmm, no..... - adamrgolf, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2*shrugs*
- ryanonfire, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3If they're all following each other then how do they get anywhere
- Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Exactly: Clearly these birds are the secret to creating a set of stargates.
- ukfoole, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Hrm... this may be intresting. I'll have to drop that sort of AI into my boid simulator. Most basic boid simulators calculate in a goal, proximity (too close or far) from neighbors, and the cohesiveness of the pack.
If you drop pack cohesiveness and replace it with just tracking 7 neighbors with a slight draw from the goal (Head South) and a slight bit of self preservation (TOO CLOSE!!!!111), making huge pack simulation would be awesome. - Bahimiron, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Your clever spelling makes me wish that if I clicked the thumbs-down icon extra hard it would count for fifty.
PS: It's a European project based out of what appears to be Italy. - FloorModel, on 01/30/2008, -3/+5now if they could get a flock of teenaged boys to put their dishes in the sink and their dirty clothes in the hamper then I'd really be excited.
- blast_flame, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Many sci-fi authors do not in fact believe that these future technologies will bring doom and gloom. The simple fact is it's is easier to write a dystopia future story than a Utopian one.
- emjaymj, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Great book? You guys must not read much...
- rabidbob, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Yeah, me too. There's got to be more info on this somewhere. I'll see if Mr Google knows.
- Sporky023, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I hereby propose the creationg of the i41 index, by which we measure the freakiness of change in the world by how often comments of this exact format appear in Digg discussions.
- h3lx, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Reminds me of this.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e44hA6IBtkA&eurl=htt ... - witooo, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4"Isn't it the general rule that robots, if given enough time, will swarm all on their own?" Dude! What, where, who... gave you that general rule? Some Asimov story? Robots will do what ever they are programed to do no matter how much time goes by. If your thinking about strong AI robots then any guess is scientifically worthless (though maybe... fun).
"catalyst to human extinction"
Evil robots, gathering up at secret meetings day and night. That will be the sign to look for when we're about to be exterminated... which happens in all possible time-line. XD - NoozeHound, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Wait all day for a robot then...
- emjaymj, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Here's a tip: humor is supposed to be funny. Face it, you look like an idiot and you're trying to save face.
- ifknot, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1As I understand it hte problem wasn't that Reynold's boids was necessarily wrong but not right for huge flocks of starlings that behave differently than smaller follow-the-leader flocking groups. The large 3000+ flocking groups of starlings display particular behvaiour in response to a predator, being able to flex, stretch and expand whilst maintaining a dynamic cohesion. Making for a very powerful defensive structure.
- jessejardim, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, great book. I'm kind of scared of swarming robots now.
- funkywood, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I was going to say didn't Craig Reynolds do this ages ago with Boids. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/
I take it yours is a few steps more advanced now? - nonpareil, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Anyone else thing smoke monster from Lost?
- DBLaise, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I recommend your recommendation.....
- Sporky023, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Michael Crichton is bar none my favorite author. But it's not his idea folks. Swarm theory has been around for at least a decade and a half, which is when I first picked up a book on it at Barnes and Noble in Springfield, IL.
- bloominoctober, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1The starlings for revealing their secret???
- testcase, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Just what we need, swarms of robots.
- Oakie1, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Ummm...yeah, i seem to remember a certain something happening in Prey by Michael Crichton.
I dunno just my two cents. - ukfoole, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1On top of blast_flames instances. It is cheaper and more fault tolerant for a team (swarm) of robots than just 1.
A few years ago, they were testing mine-sniffing bots that resembled lobsters. 20 $5,000 robots instead of 1 $200,000 robot was able to cover more distance and if one gets smashed... no big deal. - troycott, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I'll remember this article when i'm fighting to the death against the Centenals in Zion's last stand.
- razorsedge555, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I hope this kind of programming is never applied to anything that might harm people, but that would be wishful thinking.
- dawtcalm, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Doesn't 7 seem like alot?
Can a smarter, more intelligent bird track with less neighbors or more!??
If it's smarter you would think less, but then a dumber animal actually needs to track more, which requires more brain power and would make it smarter!? eek
And this article doesn't really explain HOW or WHY they have come to this conclusion. - trp5023, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I was thinking "Science" more than "Starlings", but I've got no problem taking those pesky birds down a notch.
- ZachSka87, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1F-ing awesome book. 'Cept...swarming robots forming humanoid-like personas....well....I'm hiding in an airtight bunker if that ***** happens.
- finanigan, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1It's funny you say that, because Reynolds' Boids is the first thing that came to mind when I read the headline. His algorithm, though, was based each boid attempting to maintain certain relations to all of the boids within a certain radius. This premise is exactly what the new research shows to be erroneous.
- Sporky023, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1yes
- cababika799, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Good luck with that sense of humor. Hope you've got other gifts.
- Terr01, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1It's not the same concept if it doesn't involve fundamental rewrites on basic physics in order to move the plot along :P
- Elliuotatar, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3So let me get this straight. Scientists only just figured out that the birds don't magically ignore other birds when they move more than a few feet away? And now they're saying that the birds track seven, and always seven other birds? What if there's only six birds in a flock? What THEN, SCIENTISTS?
Also, are they saying that if one bird breaks off from the flock then a bunch of the birds on that side will move away from the main flock as well to compensate? How does that explain the fact that I have seen flocks of birds split into seperate groups? It should be impossible for the group to split up if each bird maintains its position using the position of seven others.
Saying that birds track seven others is an overly simplistic view of how their brains surely work. People can flock too. When you run in a group, how do you keep track of your position? Do you count seven other people and try to maintain your position relative to them, or do you just try to keep as close to the overall mass of people around you if at the border, and in general try to keep a minimum distance of one body radius from everyone that's near you, and move at the same speed and direction as they do? Why should birds perform this process differently? I'll bet this number seven they've come up with is a factor that has less to do with the number of birds the other birds count, and more to do with the size of each bird and the minimum safe distance between them. I bet the number is different for larger flocking ground mammals. - Sporky023, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Of course there is. Scrubbing Bubbles(tm) are a joke compared with Swarming Bubbles(tm)!
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is