Wow, it is really interesting the difference in comments between ALife and AI stories on HN.
For some of you out there, there's a great book that really hasn't gotten enough attention called "The Self-Assembling Brain"
[1] that explores intelligence (artificial or otherwise) from the perspectives of AI, ALife, robotics, genetics, and neuroscience.
I hadn't realized the divide was a sharp as it is until I saw the difference in comments. i.e. this one[2] about GPT-5 has over 1000 comments of emotional intensity while comments on OP story are significantly less "intense".
The thing is, if you compare the fields, you would quickly realize that which we call AI has very little in common which intelligence. It can't even habituate to stimuli. A little more cross disciplinary study would help is get better AI sooner.
Apart from the obvious distinction that many of us on HN are making (or trying to make) money on LLMs I think you've also hit a broader point.
There appears to be a class of article that have a relatively ratio of votes to comments, and concerns such topics as, e.g. Programming Language Theory or high-level physics. These are of broad interest and probably are widely read, but are difficult to make a substantial comment on. I don't think there are knee-jerk responses to be made on Quantum Loop Gravity, so even asking an intelligent question requires background and thought and reading the fine article. (Unless you're complaining about the website design.)
The opposite is the sort of topic that generates bikeshedding and "political" discussion, along with genuine worthwhile contributions. AI safety, libertarian economics, and Californian infrastructure fall into this bucket.
This is all based on vibes from decades of reading HN and its forerunners like /. but I would be surprised if someone hasn't done some statical analyses that support the broad point. In fact I half remember dang saying that the comments-to-votes ratio is used as an indicator of topics getting too noisy and veering away from the site's goals.
thanks for your resources. I am myself concerned with the question of artificial life, and I wonder if it is even possible to search for it, or rather it will emerge on its own. Perhaps, in a sense, it is already emerging, and we humans are its substrate...
Some people have a low bar for fun, for example, learning something new that connects to something they already knew, and saying to themselves, "Neat!"
I actually found artificial life. Crocs. They keep on reproducing effectively and walking around (symbiotically with humans), with some mutation though the polysexual recombination process of Product Manager design reviews.
I mean it's Japanese for Fish, but yeah, perhaps we need a database of false cognates sorted by number-of-languages-that-consider-it-vulgar
As for Portuguese, GPTo3 tells me "depending on context it can mean “bastard,” “scumbag,” “dirty-minded jerk,” or imply that someone is a lecherous creep. It’s essentially an insult calling someone sleazy or untrustworthy."
> perhaps we need a database of false cognates sorted by number-of-languages-that-consider-it-vulgar
Or, like most people, we can assume the intent from the context and if someone says "Use git", we know they're not telling us to use a bum/rat/scum/whatever but the SCM :)
Wow, it is really interesting the difference in comments between ALife and AI stories on HN.
For some of you out there, there's a great book that really hasn't gotten enough attention called "The Self-Assembling Brain" [1] that explores intelligence (artificial or otherwise) from the perspectives of AI, ALife, robotics, genetics, and neuroscience.
I hadn't realized the divide was a sharp as it is until I saw the difference in comments. i.e. this one[2] about GPT-5 has over 1000 comments of emotional intensity while comments on OP story are significantly less "intense".
The thing is, if you compare the fields, you would quickly realize that which we call AI has very little in common which intelligence. It can't even habituate to stimuli. A little more cross disciplinary study would help is get better AI sooner.
Happy this story made it to the front page.
[1]: https://a.co/d/hF2UJKF
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42485938
Apart from the obvious distinction that many of us on HN are making (or trying to make) money on LLMs I think you've also hit a broader point.
There appears to be a class of article that have a relatively ratio of votes to comments, and concerns such topics as, e.g. Programming Language Theory or high-level physics. These are of broad interest and probably are widely read, but are difficult to make a substantial comment on. I don't think there are knee-jerk responses to be made on Quantum Loop Gravity, so even asking an intelligent question requires background and thought and reading the fine article. (Unless you're complaining about the website design.)
The opposite is the sort of topic that generates bikeshedding and "political" discussion, along with genuine worthwhile contributions. AI safety, libertarian economics, and Californian infrastructure fall into this bucket.
This is all based on vibes from decades of reading HN and its forerunners like /. but I would be surprised if someone hasn't done some statical analyses that support the broad point. In fact I half remember dang saying that the comments-to-votes ratio is used as an indicator of topics getting too noisy and veering away from the site's goals.
thanks for your resources. I am myself concerned with the question of artificial life, and I wonder if it is even possible to search for it, or rather it will emerge on its own. Perhaps, in a sense, it is already emerging, and we humans are its substrate...
Fun fact: Sakana AI is founded by some of the authors of the original transformer paper, "Attention Is All You Need"
Where's the fun part? I can't exactly imagine throwing this out as an anecdote to entertain a few friends during a sophisticated little soiree.
Some people have a low bar for fun, for example, learning something new that connects to something they already knew, and saying to themselves, "Neat!"
> to entertain a few friends during a sophisticated little soiree
Isn't this basically what (we'd like to think) HN is?
No need to poke fun. I found it interesting. Among friends who are interested in AI it’s the kind of random fact you’d throw into conversation.
try harder
you have friends?
I actually found artificial life. Crocs. They keep on reproducing effectively and walking around (symbiotically with humans), with some mutation though the polysexual recombination process of Product Manager design reviews.
I think that it's a bit silly to call something life just because it resembles stuff you see under a microscope.
But I can't deny that it's beautiful. Unlike crocs.
In this context I can also highly recommend the Sara Walker episodes on Lex Fridman:
https://youtu.be/-tDQ74I3Ovs?si=1m0JV8gZEl4WFedG
https://youtu.be/SFxIazwNP_0?si=R7yZroSNbw5Jjc0H
https://youtu.be/wwhTfyX9J34?si=ceXh_aehsjQPklUT
Before I read the article all I could think about was what if AI was used with SETI's data, would we find something there?
What has prompted you to comment, after almost 10 years?
No specific reason, i'm here multiple times a day but I rarely comment.
Curious - what’s the intended product direction of Sakana AI? Is it mainly a research lab or is it doing commercialization?
It's a incorporated for-profit company with VC investments, so somewhere/somehow there needs to be commercialization.
The name of this company has real meaning in Português which I reckon is unintended.
I mean it's Japanese for Fish, but yeah, perhaps we need a database of false cognates sorted by number-of-languages-that-consider-it-vulgar
As for Portuguese, GPTo3 tells me "depending on context it can mean “bastard,” “scumbag,” “dirty-minded jerk,” or imply that someone is a lecherous creep. It’s essentially an insult calling someone sleazy or untrustworthy."
Would you say that's about right?
> perhaps we need a database of false cognates sorted by number-of-languages-that-consider-it-vulgar
Or, like most people, we can assume the intent from the context and if someone says "Use git", we know they're not telling us to use a bum/rat/scum/whatever but the SCM :)
Are these cellular automata or Something more?
2025 prediction: Wolfram declares agentic cellular automaton supremacy.
he's slowly building his army that will conquer all the computers in the world.
Congrats David & the whole team! Really enjoy everything Sakana AI produces and always look forward to your research results.