Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« [ETech] Conference Blog || Back to Blog | [ETech] O'Reilly Radar »

April 23, 2003

[ETech] Biological Computing

Eric Bonabeau is talking about "Inspiration from nature for designing computing systems."

He begins with an exceptionally clear example of how ants "solve" the problem of finding the shortest route to a sugar cube. Those that discover the shortest path deposit the freshest pheromones. He now applies this to the Salesman Problem (shortest routes among multiple cities). [It involved math so I played Minesweeper until the scary symbols went away.]

He shows how this form of emergent programming can result in more efficient routing of packets.

Now he's onto the "second lesson from nature: simple rules rule." With ants, a small ant carrying a load will give up that load when it comes across a larger ant. This is apparently quite efficient as proven at CVS drugstores where workers were ranked in terms of productivity and organized into ant-like "bucket brigades." [How appealing!]

Eric asks us to imagine a game in which we are assigned an aggressor and a protector. Each person has to try to put his protector between himself and his aggressor. The overall pattern of behavior is very hard to predict. Change the rules a little and you get a different outcome. And individuals' explanations don't really account for the way it turns out: people don't know what they're part of. But you can simulate this via bottom up modeling, and you can affect behavior through minor adjustments of the rules. E.g., SW Airlines did this for cargo routing and saved $10M a year with a 71% improvement at the biggest hubs.

Eric tells a cuationary tale about blindly following simple rules. For example, army ants may sometimes form a circular path and follow each other around, putting down more and more pheromone that causes them to march ever faster, until they die. [Ah, a metaphor for life.]

Lesson #3: No one has to be in control. His example: Ants randomly position themselves around a big item until by chance they are all pushing in the same direction. Also, nest construction by wasps.

How do we shape emergence? Great demo at the end: Give people a slip of paper saying who they like and who they hate. They are to move towards those they like and away from those they hate. With random initial conditions, we get the same pattern: a rotating line within a following circle. Eric ran the simulation and it was, well, cool.

Practical results: Self-organized satellite deployment, swarm-based senor networks, self-healing networks. Social control and world domination. Coming soon.

Glenn Fleishman asks: How do you model perversity, i.e., "particles" that purposefully don't follow the rules. Eric says this asks what you do if the particles don't like your rules. Answer: you can make the rules robust against perturbation. [Doesn't this mean that you can make rules that result in particular behaviors that the particles — we — don't recognize as bringing about that group behavior and that we don't even want to follow?]

[Would someone like to tell me if this shows the importance of Wolfram or his irrelevance? Or neither, of course.]

FUN QUOTE: You never find mergers in nature. Only de-mergers.

Posted by D. Weinberger at April 23, 2003 03:05 PM


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference [ETech] Biological Computing:

» Biological Computing Session from jimlog 2.0
David Weinberger's summary of Eric Bonabeau's biological computing session at etcon.... [Read More]

Tracked on April 23, 2003 05:05 PM

Comments

Actually you *do* find mergers in nature. Under certain circumstances honeybee swarms will merge to form a single colony.Frank.

Posted by: Frank | April 23, 2003 05:23 PM


David, thanks for the awesome ETech coverage.

w.r.t. Glenn Fleishman's question, How do you model perversity? ... from a modeling standpoint, Eric's "not liking the rules" is equivalent to being unable to follow them; i.e., perversity = error. So you might model individual failure modes, such as (in the case of ants) low pheromone production or low mobility, as well as pairwise and n-wise effects such as clumping. As for building-in robustness, there are established system techniques for reducing sensitivity to error, noise, perturbation, etc. which can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to cellular automata.

So, does this imply that a mover/shaker could model specific group behaviors and trigger ("cause" feels too strong here) emergent effects unwilled by the group? Let's say Yes. Before you sit down to write "2084", though, riddle me this: are we saying anything more dire here than Lincoln said a century ago about fooling ALL the people SOME of the time? We are not ants, after all - at least, not all of us, not all the time. Although it might be possible to contrive emergent behaviors that implement a type of invisible hand, the (human) particles subject to the outcome are not hardwired automata, but reflective, adaptive beings. To quote a lesser sage than Lincoln, We won't get fooled again. (Or at least not again and again.)

Techno-positivists might counter that it is in principle possible to model human perception, reflection, and adaptation, and thus to build systems robust against them, too. I'm sure they'll get to it right after completing the Semantic Web and generalized AI. My worry here has more to do with tax dollars than emergence as a means of social control.

No, I save my emergence nightmares for the kind of all-too-achievable, DARPA-funded nanodemons Michael Crichton conjures in "Prey", and for their bioengineered bretheren.

Posted by: GBenett | April 23, 2003 06:19 PM


Frank, oddly, Eric's example was exactly that of bee swarms.

Posted by: dweinberger | April 23, 2003 06:57 PM


Gordon, Thanks for the informative/insightful comment.

Posted by: dweinberger | April 23, 2003 06:59 PM


One of my favourite examples of mergers in nature is the merger of mitochondria and cells. Lynn Margulis may have been the first to propose that our unicellular ancestors actually took on mitochondria because they were a more efficient source of energy. And thus we now have cells that contain two sets of DNA: the nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA.

Other examples abound, with parasites leading the way. Succesful mergers in nature are elegant cases of cooperation. We could learn a lot from them.

Posted by: Chris Corrigan | April 23, 2003 10:36 PM


Those whose paths are not the same do not consult one another.

Posted by: McGrath Ian | December 10, 2003 09:03 PM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.