Parrots love playing tablet games. That's helping researchers understand them(news.northeastern.edu)
news.northeastern.edu
Parrots love playing tablet games. That's helping researchers understand them
https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/03/20/parrots-playing-tablet-games/
167 comments
Made me think of this video where a parrot is watching YouTube videos it likes, changing to different ones, and seeming angry when ads (or the owner lol) interrupt its video-watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZSNhJcKFf4
Incredible!
So much that is fascinating about non-human animals. I can't resist but think that there's a deep similarity between us, and them. One that we even don't suspect. Reminds me of Tom Regan's words:
"Animals have a past, a story, a biography. They have histories. Mink and bears, elephants and dolphins, pigs and chickens, cats and dogs: each is a unique somebody, not a disposable something."
So much that is fascinating about non-human animals. I can't resist but think that there's a deep similarity between us, and them. One that we even don't suspect. Reminds me of Tom Regan's words:
"Animals have a past, a story, a biography. They have histories. Mink and bears, elephants and dolphins, pigs and chickens, cats and dogs: each is a unique somebody, not a disposable something."
We can't prove or disprove that enslaving and exploiting animals is a bad thing. As a society we currently answer that with .. take a look at your supermarket. What if we are wrong?
You can't prove or disprove any ethical claim with pure logic. You always have to ground it in some sort of axiom as a starting point (e.g. "causing suffering is bad")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
of course we're wrong, we can easily prove that enslaving and exploiting them is a bad thing. we know animals are capable of suffering and we know animals do suffer in the conditions we create for them, it's as simple as that.
Why does it matter that they are capable of suffering? This is a serious question. When it comes to morality invariably when you dig down deep enough, all of it is based on human made assumptions. That doesn't invalidate discussions about morality, we just have to be aware that it is built on a subjective foundation.
And for the record, I personally suggest a vegan lifestyle, because I believe exploiting animals is morally wrong.
And for the record, I personally suggest a vegan lifestyle, because I believe exploiting animals is morally wrong.
Hey, good for you for asking this question despite being on the animal rights side. I wish I could say something useful as an answer. I could snipe at Jeremy Bentham for kicking it off in 1780 with shoddy reasoning: not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? he says, but this is really a side effect of an argument against slavery and contains no discussion of why reducing suffering is desirable, and he was also responsible for utilitarianism, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number", a fundamentally awkward fundamental axiom - and happiness isn't even identical with the things we tend to think are right - and then you have the problem of animals causing suffering to other animals routinely. But I can only agree that it's a good question.
What makes it a good question? It's obvious that we can't conjure universally compelling moral axioms out of nowhere; all of our moral reasoning ultimately rests on fundamental values that one either cares about or doesn't. If our sceptic has the capacity for empathy with animals, we can try to convince them to elevate their empathetic response to the status of a moral value. But if they simply don't care, and insist that they will only begin to care if logically compelled to do so, we're in the same position as if we were trying to reason a sociopath into valuing other people's wellbeing as an intrinsic good.
I think, first of all, you're not wrong, but also, you're mostly wrong. People with completely separate value systems exist, but only theoretically, or historically. I know there's a lot of hand-wringing at the moment about society being fractured and divided, and it may be Pollyannaish of me to say this, but I think we're mostly all on the same side with approximately the same bunch of deep values, by the power of culture (and we more or less all come from the same culture, "modern"). We can have productive discussions, we can work it out. The Myth of the Framework is a relevant book.
Because what stands in the center of it is empathy, which is not a human only thing
Cruelty, antipathy and apathy are also not uniquely human. Yes, you will see some animals behaving empathically in some situations, but people that walk over to pet bears and get mauled don't really earn much sympathy from people who know wild animals. Any given animal species will not share our norms. As an extreme example, the guinea worm should be extinguished from this earth. I believe no one can empathize with that species, but in any case I will support those people who seek to make it extinct. Between that extreme and equal membership in society are many models of co-existence and we will naturally disagree amongst ourselves of what norms we should have regarding that co-existence. There are no universal norms for our co-existence.
To "prove" is to derive from a set of consistent axioms. There is no set of universally agreed axioms for badness and in fact the vast majority of people do not even have a consistent set of moral beliefs. Simply changing how you phrase a question can get very different answers (e.g. "conscription" vs "murder slavery" vs "making people defend the country that defends them").
Yes. This doesn't mean that morality is subjective and divorced from reality, mind you. It just means that trying to hone an objective theory of morality will make you unpopular.
Depends what definition of "morality" you're using. Most are subjective and the remainder tend to be either descriptive, local (making use of the speaker, and their properties such as their culture, in their definition/meaning) or religious.
Most animals in the wild live very tough, short lives and have high likelihood that they be killed and eaten by predators, so they live every second of their lives in fear. I am not convinced that when animals are grown by humans in appropriate conditions (i.e. not overcrowded sausage factories), given all the food they need and able to "enjoy" (this is a human emotion, but perhaps they have an analogous "feeling" when out in nature?) nature while being protected, it's really wrong. We are part of nature and our physiology made us capable of eating meat, just like all other predators. Do you believe all predators are "morally wrong", or only humans?? Denying our nature never seems like a very wise thing.
predators hunt, humans farm
Not really, farming is a clever hack that we only learned in the last ~12,000 years [1]
The evidence is that most of our existence we hunted and gathered nomadically.
[1] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/developmen...
The evidence is that most of our existence we hunted and gathered nomadically.
[1] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/developmen...
Its not a strong argument. Denying nature is what we do constantly. We teach our children to shit in a bowl that flushes water instead of shitting on the ground, we teach them to delay their gratification s, we tell them not to use violence, we teach them to ask for consent. All unnatural things to do. Are you saying these are not wise things to do?
You misunderstand what "natural" means. Nature doesn't care at all about those things. But as a social species, we evolved some "rules" which ensure our survival. In that sense, some of our morality has roots in nature and evolution.
So I don't agree at all that by not using violence all the time we're going against our nature.
But in the case of food, I believe we are, because evidently we require certain substances to survive, and one of the best ways to get those is to eat meat. In most regions where humans live today, without meat or foods imported from faraway regions, we couldn't survive.
So I don't agree at all that by not using violence all the time we're going against our nature.
But in the case of food, I believe we are, because evidently we require certain substances to survive, and one of the best ways to get those is to eat meat. In most regions where humans live today, without meat or foods imported from faraway regions, we couldn't survive.
> But in the case of food, I believe we are, because evidently we require certain substances to survive, and one of the best ways to get those is to eat meat.
If it was the only way this would be more compelling. However it is just the easiest way.
Like arguably the best way to get money is to mug someone, but i don't think that makes it ethical when there are alternatives.
If it was the only way this would be more compelling. However it is just the easiest way.
Like arguably the best way to get money is to mug someone, but i don't think that makes it ethical when there are alternatives.
Nature is adaptation for survival. I think you're mixing up "the old ways" with "naturally beneficial ways". Your chances of survival and reproduction are much higher with access to modern toilets, delayed gratification, no unnecessary violence, and due to society asking for consent. It's perfectly natural.
So "natural" includes anything artificial, so long as it's adaptive. This is a peculiar definition of the word.
"artificial" itself needs expanding on to use in this discussion. Are tools artificial? Where's the threshold? Stick, hammer, wrench, electric drill? Or is it only natural if we're naked collecting fruit?
> so they live every second of their lives in fear.
Seems like an oversimplification to me, and we don't know that they live their whole live in fear. We observe playful and happy behavior in plenty of wild animals, not only in apex predators.
> I am not convinced that when animals are grown by humans in appropriate conditions [...]
They lack any kind of self determination, take a milk farm for example. The cows are inseminated/raped by humans until they die, children are taken away from their mothers shorty after birth, the girls are destined for a live of constant pregnancy, the boys for 9 month of power food and then the knife. So many animals that we use including many pets, would run away, if we opened the prison doors. I fail to see this form of enslavement as something positive.
> Do you believe all predators are "morally wrong", or only humans??
No, I don't believe that. But I believe you are making a false equivalence here, I have no moral qualms with an indigenous group of people hunting for a living. I do have a problem with industrial scale exploitation, when we have reasonable plant based alternatives, heck personally I don't even mind industrial scale insect farming. Do you think that two angry humans killing each other over a conflict is the same thing as industrial scale genocide with labor camps?
Seems like an oversimplification to me, and we don't know that they live their whole live in fear. We observe playful and happy behavior in plenty of wild animals, not only in apex predators.
> I am not convinced that when animals are grown by humans in appropriate conditions [...]
They lack any kind of self determination, take a milk farm for example. The cows are inseminated/raped by humans until they die, children are taken away from their mothers shorty after birth, the girls are destined for a live of constant pregnancy, the boys for 9 month of power food and then the knife. So many animals that we use including many pets, would run away, if we opened the prison doors. I fail to see this form of enslavement as something positive.
> Do you believe all predators are "morally wrong", or only humans??
No, I don't believe that. But I believe you are making a false equivalence here, I have no moral qualms with an indigenous group of people hunting for a living. I do have a problem with industrial scale exploitation, when we have reasonable plant based alternatives, heck personally I don't even mind industrial scale insect farming. Do you think that two angry humans killing each other over a conflict is the same thing as industrial scale genocide with labor camps?
If you think we are raping cows when they are artificially inseminated, I hope you are equally horrified by natural animal sex. Everything from penis spines to traumatic insemination, to dolphin rape gangs, and worse exist in animal sex. And the there is oven nothing resembing consent asked or given. Its humans and bonaboo and thats pretty much it that who do it nicely most of the time.
If you intend to maintain the falsehood that cows’ sex is not completely denatured, you’re simply wrong. We have manufactured species that are easier to manipulate, that are incapable of surviving without us. We cause untold misery on them to give us food. We do that, because it’s cheap.
I don’t fool myself. Any industrial food industry is built on a foundation of manufactured pain.
I don’t fool myself. Any industrial food industry is built on a foundation of manufactured pain.
I see your point, indeed by human standards consent and in general a lack of cruelty are not what defines wild animal life. At the same time I believe there is an important difference between humans doing it in an industry setting and it happening in the wild. Additionally, even ignoring the insemination point, I'd say the big picture remains the same. For me the big picture is a question of self determination, in the wild, female mammals usually have more than zero control over who they mate with, in the setting of a farm her head gets locked into place between bars so she can't move away when a human plunges a probe into her.
I do agree that animal "factories" are wrong. I think we disagree only on a minor point: I think that it's not wrong for humans to domesticate and "grow" animals if they do it in a "humane" (I don't know a better word here) way where the animals do not suffer and have ways to enjoy their lives, whatever that may be, while I believe you're saying that's also wrong and only hunting wild animals is acceptable?
> We observe playful and happy behavior in plenty of wild animals, not only in apex predators.
I don't know... you may see that in an environment heavily modified by humans, like National Parks or zoos... but in really wild environments, there would be a healthy population of predators that "control" the population of those animals they hunt, so it seems it's almost inevitable that if you're prey, in a real wild environment, you would need to be on your toes absolutely all the time. This is what I've observed from the little interactions I had with really wild environments.
> Do you think that two angry humans killing each other over a conflict is the same thing as industrial scale genocide with labor camps?
That's a weird questions to ask, I don't see any relation whatsoever with what is being discussed.
> We observe playful and happy behavior in plenty of wild animals, not only in apex predators.
I don't know... you may see that in an environment heavily modified by humans, like National Parks or zoos... but in really wild environments, there would be a healthy population of predators that "control" the population of those animals they hunt, so it seems it's almost inevitable that if you're prey, in a real wild environment, you would need to be on your toes absolutely all the time. This is what I've observed from the little interactions I had with really wild environments.
> Do you think that two angry humans killing each other over a conflict is the same thing as industrial scale genocide with labor camps?
That's a weird questions to ask, I don't see any relation whatsoever with what is being discussed.
There is no version of animal farming that if you did the same with humans wouldn't constitute human rights violations. Why should we be special? "Hey, my slaves are well fed, happy and they are even allowed to sleep in the house, where's your problem man."
> That's a weird questions to ask, I don't see any relation whatsoever with what is being discussed.
I painted a false equivalence in a related field with the same tools you did. In both cases people are killed, but the details matter. And for our discussion, killing animals != killing animals.
> That's a weird questions to ask, I don't see any relation whatsoever with what is being discussed.
I painted a false equivalence in a related field with the same tools you did. In both cases people are killed, but the details matter. And for our discussion, killing animals != killing animals.
>>There is no version of animal farming that if you did the same with humans wouldn't constitute human rights violations.
Look at the way cattle and sheep are farmed over moorlands in the UK, the animals are literally left alone on land hundreds of hectares large, they live in as "natural" environment as physically possible. We can argue that a human left in those conditions would be unhappy with the still limited space, but I don't think we can argue in good faith that any animal is "unhappy" in those circumstances.
Look at the way cattle and sheep are farmed over moorlands in the UK, the animals are literally left alone on land hundreds of hectares large, they live in as "natural" environment as physically possible. We can argue that a human left in those conditions would be unhappy with the still limited space, but I don't think we can argue in good faith that any animal is "unhappy" in those circumstances.
Humans are still imposing their will on these animals. They will still be used in one way or the other.
If we substitute your children into their lifestyle, would you be ok with that? Run around these free fields, but there are fences, and you will have to subject yourself to mandatory harvest long before the end of your natural lifespan. Ah and sometimes a dude will come around and shove a stick with a magnet down your throat to collect metal junk you've eaten because people carelessly throw away trash. I never talked about happiness, I talked about self determination. Yes it's not all equally bad, but saying humane farming is like saying humane torture. A dichotomy and a lie. I'm not saying farming equals torture, I'm saying self determination and farming are fundamentally incompatible.
If we substitute your children into their lifestyle, would you be ok with that? Run around these free fields, but there are fences, and you will have to subject yourself to mandatory harvest long before the end of your natural lifespan. Ah and sometimes a dude will come around and shove a stick with a magnet down your throat to collect metal junk you've eaten because people carelessly throw away trash. I never talked about happiness, I talked about self determination. Yes it's not all equally bad, but saying humane farming is like saying humane torture. A dichotomy and a lie. I'm not saying farming equals torture, I'm saying self determination and farming are fundamentally incompatible.
>>If we substitute your children into their lifestyle, would you be ok with that?
Animals are not humans though, so this comparison is completely moot(for me anyway).
>>Humans are still imposing their will on these animals.
That's like saying that I'm imposing my will on my dog by making him live with me. Like....I guess you are correct? That doesn't automatically make it bad - if it does for you, then I guess that's where we disagree.
>> I talked about self determination
I don't believe animals have self determination in the first place, not it in the same way humans do. A cow is neither capable of deciding its own fate, nor is any attempt to give it such agency even remotely reasonable. Again, I expect we will disagree here.
>> but saying humane farming is like saying humane torture
Uhmmm, again, no not really, because keeping an animal on an open moor like in my example wouldn't be called torture by literally anyone other than the most extreme believer in animal rights. After all that's where these animals normally live, the fact that there is a fence there(sometimes there isn't even one, or if there is the animal might literally never come across it), is literally the only difference between "wild" and "farmed" animal here.
But for the sake of the discussion - do you then consider hunting wild animals ethical or humane? Like a bunch of deer living in a forest, and they just get shot one day - is that more or less ethical than killing a sheep that spent its entire life out in the open? What makes that difference?
Animals are not humans though, so this comparison is completely moot(for me anyway).
>>Humans are still imposing their will on these animals.
That's like saying that I'm imposing my will on my dog by making him live with me. Like....I guess you are correct? That doesn't automatically make it bad - if it does for you, then I guess that's where we disagree.
>> I talked about self determination
I don't believe animals have self determination in the first place, not it in the same way humans do. A cow is neither capable of deciding its own fate, nor is any attempt to give it such agency even remotely reasonable. Again, I expect we will disagree here.
>> but saying humane farming is like saying humane torture
Uhmmm, again, no not really, because keeping an animal on an open moor like in my example wouldn't be called torture by literally anyone other than the most extreme believer in animal rights. After all that's where these animals normally live, the fact that there is a fence there(sometimes there isn't even one, or if there is the animal might literally never come across it), is literally the only difference between "wild" and "farmed" animal here.
But for the sake of the discussion - do you then consider hunting wild animals ethical or humane? Like a bunch of deer living in a forest, and they just get shot one day - is that more or less ethical than killing a sheep that spent its entire life out in the open? What makes that difference?
> There is no version of animal farming that if you did the same with humans wouldn't constitute human rights violations.
This is also true of vegetable farming.
If you are arguing that dividing humans from animals is arbitrary, the same is true of dividing the other kingdoms of life from Animalia.
This is also true of vegetable farming.
If you are arguing that dividing humans from animals is arbitrary, the same is true of dividing the other kingdoms of life from Animalia.
You are right. That's a subjective line. As I've argued above all of ethics builds on top of subjective axioms. Personally I draw the line at complex emotions, which I define as anything more complex than insects.
We can take it as an axiom. I believe that enslaving animals and causing harm to the biosphere is just as bad as human enslavement and genocide. I believe such an axiom is the only moral one.
It's not just our supermarket. Our entire society is based on the genocide of animal species and destruction and violence. It is the most sick society and disgusting thing I have ever seen, on the level of the atrocities of all of human history.
It's not just our supermarket. Our entire society is based on the genocide of animal species and destruction and violence. It is the most sick society and disgusting thing I have ever seen, on the level of the atrocities of all of human history.
I love how the parrot has no patience whatsoever for ads and cable news. If more humans were like that parrot, Youtube would be a much better platform.
I was going to make a joke about PMs at Google looking at product experiment results based on parrot engagement - but I'm not sure their work would change at all actually, and that might be the joke about Google product development.
Always weird to me how parrots and crows evolved to be so much smarter than the rest of the birds
There is a small park right outside my house and I constantly see crows just clowning around on other birds. I’ve seen them harass eagles just for fun and casually take food from pigeons.
There is a small park right outside my house and I constantly see crows just clowning around on other birds. I’ve seen them harass eagles just for fun and casually take food from pigeons.
Was this the form of intellectual superiority that Homo sapiens flaunted when they were among “dumber” apes?
Hasn't the idea that homo sapiens were more intelligent been debunked in favour of the idea that they were more social and that's what gave them superiority
I don't know, but I suspect you mean compared to other hominids, while GP had non-hominids like chimpanzees and gorillas in mind, so I just wanted to make sure that that potential confusion is cleared up first.
Remember, our predecessors did not pal around with apes. They paled around with the ancestors of apes.
No, see, this is exactly the type of misunderstanding I wanted to clear up: there is an entire lineage of different hominids that came after the split with chimpanzees. If we consider gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees apes, then all of the hominids are apes. And all of those hominids either went fully extinct, or interbred with early homo sapiens to leave some living traces of their DNA with us, and then went extinct.
So "our predecessors" isn't specific enough. One might mean our pre-ape ancestors, like you do, or the subgroup of apes that is hominids.
So "our predecessors" isn't specific enough. One might mean our pre-ape ancestors, like you do, or the subgroup of apes that is hominids.
How is possible to debunk something we have no direct information about?
I mean a new "idea" is far from being able debunk anything, right?
I mean a new "idea" is far from being able debunk anything, right?
Well, if they meant homo sapiens vs neanderthals, we have both skull sizes and genetic evidence suggesting that their brains were as capable as ours. We also have enough archeological sites of both early homo sapiens and neanderthals to have a decent understanding of the social structures we had. So it is possible to draw conclusions, even if it is never with 100% certainty.
Also, the debunking likely refers to the really old progressivist idea that any species that went extinct must have done so because it was inherently "inferior", instead of less well adapted to whatever changes the environment threw at them.
Either way, from what I understand the most recent well-supported theories of what caused neanderthal extinction is that their basal metabolic rate was so much higher compared to ours (due to adaptations to the ice age), that this simple caloric difference gave their body plan a long-term disadvantage over ours after the ice age ended[0].
And when I say "body plan" I refer to the part where apparently early humans and Neanderthals interbred so often that about 20% of Neanderthal DNA is still present in the modern human gene pool, and most humans have about 1 to 4% neanderthal DNA[1]. Similarly DNA from homo sapiens has also been found in neanderthal remains[2].
So were kind of reaching this point where Neanderthals and Denovisans seem to not quite match the definition that most people use when they say "different species". Our ancestors interbred a lot, and the genes that were advantageous stuck around. At that point using the word "extinction" without caveats becomes a bit misleading I think.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6d3uHSFxkM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2FatwFjc-8
Also, the debunking likely refers to the really old progressivist idea that any species that went extinct must have done so because it was inherently "inferior", instead of less well adapted to whatever changes the environment threw at them.
Either way, from what I understand the most recent well-supported theories of what caused neanderthal extinction is that their basal metabolic rate was so much higher compared to ours (due to adaptations to the ice age), that this simple caloric difference gave their body plan a long-term disadvantage over ours after the ice age ended[0].
And when I say "body plan" I refer to the part where apparently early humans and Neanderthals interbred so often that about 20% of Neanderthal DNA is still present in the modern human gene pool, and most humans have about 1 to 4% neanderthal DNA[1]. Similarly DNA from homo sapiens has also been found in neanderthal remains[2].
So were kind of reaching this point where Neanderthals and Denovisans seem to not quite match the definition that most people use when they say "different species". Our ancestors interbred a lot, and the genes that were advantageous stuck around. At that point using the word "extinction" without caveats becomes a bit misleading I think.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6d3uHSFxkM
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genetics
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2FatwFjc-8
Actually much more impressive than the research videos, he clearly knows his way around youtube
And on top of that, can obviously recognize parrots in the video thumbnails.
It’s incredible that a 90 second video of someone with a pet parrot and an iPad is more illuminating then the average paper…
This is truely the magic of the internet.
The earnestest researcher can't go survey every parrot in every home all around the world, but parrot owners can casually expose what their own parrots do.
Reminds me of the Twitter thread where a mite researcher discovers a new species in a photo posted by an amateur photographer.
The earnestest researcher can't go survey every parrot in every home all around the world, but parrot owners can casually expose what their own parrots do.
Reminds me of the Twitter thread where a mite researcher discovers a new species in a photo posted by an amateur photographer.
Until they make a sudden and illogical change to their design.
YouTube UX: "We have this one weird cohort that's responding abnormally to all our UI A/B testing..."
Only until enough parrot owners find out about this, at which point parrots overtake the human population of Youtube and the metrics start catering to them.
Leading to something a bit like this, then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XFe2g98RU
Just wait until the stochastic parrots discover YouTube…
> and the metrics start catering to them
"in order to access this functionality, you must first chew through the charging cable"
"in order to access this functionality, you must first chew through the charging cable"
YouTube optimizing for toddlers and parrots makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it...
And that's to say nothing of the parrot ad click farms.
And that's to say nothing of the parrot ad click farms.
Parrots are the original stochastic parrot
“Odd that its 50 year old males in Florida”
Wow, so impressive that the parrots knows how to minimize the video and browse for other stuff.
I don't know if that is sarcastic, but it is legitimately impressive to me.
That parrot looks almost exactly like a 4 year old using youtube.
It's sort of astonishing to think about. From both the fact that the parrot can figure it out, and that the function and use of youtube is so intuitive to users that a parrot can learn it.
That parrot looks almost exactly like a 4 year old using youtube.
It's sort of astonishing to think about. From both the fact that the parrot can figure it out, and that the function and use of youtube is so intuitive to users that a parrot can learn it.
We had a Red-and-green macaw when I was young. He bit a lot and required a lot of attention. My dad was friends with the local zoo's head falconer and he took him in and let his teenage son train him. I visited him a few year later and he was wicked smart. He could play Super Nintendo Aladdin
> That parrot looks almost exactly like a 4 year old using youtube.
I've heard people describing parrots like hyperactive 4-5 year olds so many times... it's nice to see that in practice lol. It must be a great pet, I could never deal with the constant pooping though. Imagine having to deal with them making a mess every 30 minutes for 70 years. How many poops even is that? Yikes.
I've heard people describing parrots like hyperactive 4-5 year olds so many times... it's nice to see that in practice lol. It must be a great pet, I could never deal with the constant pooping though. Imagine having to deal with them making a mess every 30 minutes for 70 years. How many poops even is that? Yikes.
They're very cute but they're awful pets. Please everyone, don't get one because you thought the video was cute. They need a massive amount of your time otherwise they become horny monsters that shred your life.
as a parrot owner (blue fronted amazon), that's true, it's like having a child, like, really, it's not hyperbolic unlike dog/cat owners.
Generally true, although some species need way more attention than others. And 'way more' can often mean full time attention whenever they aren't sleeping.
I had an Amazon parrot that needed less attention than an African Gray or a Cockatoo.
I'd still not recommend as a pet given that their lifespans are so long. It's a decades long commitment and they may even outlast you, in which case you need to figure out what's going to happen to them.
I had an Amazon parrot that needed less attention than an African Gray or a Cockatoo.
I'd still not recommend as a pet given that their lifespans are so long. It's a decades long commitment and they may even outlast you, in which case you need to figure out what's going to happen to them.
Are you talking about the parrots?
It's a hyperactive 4-5 year old, with scissors for a face, that never matures. I love having parrots, but they're not at all for everyone, and in many ways make terrible pets.
A friend of mine's mother used to keep parrots, and I remember the biggest and oldest one well (an African grey). I still remember the playful "clip!" sound it would make as I walked past the cage, and it would lean towards me, trying to take a chunk out of me.
Yep. The bigger parrots (macaws & large cockatoos) are more like bolt cutters for a face. I used to volunteer at a parrot rescue when I lived near one, we'd feed the hyacinth macaws unopened macadamia nuts. They'd crack the shells seemingly without effort.
[deleted]
> making a mess every 30 minutes for 70 years
Oh that's adorable. I have a parrot and poops aren't even the biggest mess he makes.
They love to fling food. And shredding. And throwing everything you hold dear. And even a tiny 120g parrot like mine is strong enough to open cupboards and drawers.
Oh that's adorable. I have a parrot and poops aren't even the biggest mess he makes.
They love to fling food. And shredding. And throwing everything you hold dear. And even a tiny 120g parrot like mine is strong enough to open cupboards and drawers.
What is the upside?
They’re pretty fun and super affectionate! It’s like having a little curious buddy who wants to do everything with you, learns your routine, communicates what’s on their mind, always warns you of scary things and sounds, viciously attacks anything or anyone they think might be a danger to you, and absolutely holds a grudge if you do something upsetting.
And they’re smart enough to remember people for many years and learn how to behave differently around different people based on past interactions.
Oh and you can throw them like a boomerang.
And they’re smart enough to remember people for many years and learn how to behave differently around different people based on past interactions.
Oh and you can throw them like a boomerang.
Sounds like you have a sun conure
> Imagine having to deal with them making a mess every 30 minutes for 70 years. How many poops even is that? Yikes.
If my math is right, over 70 years a parrot would give 1,227,240 shits about you.
If my math is right, over 70 years a parrot would give 1,227,240 shits about you.
The bigger problem is that parrots are very social and need a lot of interaction with you throughout their lives not just until they are teens.
Yeah, those look intentional swipe downs & scrolling actions. What an amazing bird
In reality though they're not that smart, they're just like a speaking GPT machine
;)
I envision a world where we discover that some of our pets enjoy tech like us, but we try our hardest not to brainwash them with ads for humans.
In this world, some of us humans try to fail Turing tests on purpose to get access to ad-free tech designed for pets. Yes, Google, I am a parrot, why?
In this world, some of us humans try to fail Turing tests on purpose to get access to ad-free tech designed for pets. Yes, Google, I am a parrot, why?
The original video https://www.instagram.com/insta.beakk/reel/CtIzWvDgWzX/ and there are more of him
Thank you! I've been trying for ages to find where this video was ripped from (as the link I found was very obviously not the original source)!
Buy this parrot YouTube Premium! I don't know the exact species of parrot this is, but if it has a lifespan of 25 years, a 1 minute ad is like a 4 minute ad for them. Just imagine sitting through that!
Adblock would do the same without supporting these nefarious monetization techniques.
It's an Indian ringneck parakeet (aviculture name) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose-ringed_parakeet
> Last year, the team showed a group of parrots how to video call one another, finding that the birds both overwhelmingly enjoyed the activity and could make the calls themselves, when given the option.
My heart! There's a separate article dedicated to it: https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/04/21/parrots-talking-vid...
My heart! There's a separate article dedicated to it: https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/04/21/parrots-talking-vid...
And they had preferred friends! It's truly awesome because their owners could help improve their quality of life with just a cheap tablet and the service fee.
Their owners could improve their quality of life by simply not keeping them
Parrots are too smart and too social to be kept in captivity
Parrots are too smart and too social to be kept in captivity
Yeah these comments feel so out of touch, kind of a metaphors for what we became with modern tech. We're creating tools and distractions to cope from how unbearable we made our daily lives, and apparently it's progress
I'm free to log off this website and the rest of the Internet at any time! Harrumph.
Basically enslaved in a prison but with a tablet.
It reminded me of a documentary I saw long ago on ape communication (between themselves as well as with humans), and I found that Wikipedia has a rich article on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language
YC S24: Tinder for Parrots
There's also this longer-form article about the parrots learning how to read, request music, etc.: https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/04/28/magazine/cockatoo-p...
It feels like increasingly, we're finding that humans are not quite as "uniquely intelligent" as we thought.
Don't get me wrong, humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously, but it does seem like we greatly underestimated the intelligence of a lot of others. Birds like parrots and crows in particular continue to impress me when I see them solving increasingly elaborate puzzles, and figuring out how to open windows and the like.
Also I just think parrots are cute.
Don't get me wrong, humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously, but it does seem like we greatly underestimated the intelligence of a lot of others. Birds like parrots and crows in particular continue to impress me when I see them solving increasingly elaborate puzzles, and figuring out how to open windows and the like.
Also I just think parrots are cute.
It’s easier to kill animals and destroy their habit when you think less of them and presume them to have little to no intelligence or emotion (or so little it doesn’t count)
> humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously
I think this is correct but not obvious. It could be we (I am assuming you are also human :) are just the most ambitious.
I think this is correct but not obvious. It could be we (I am assuming you are also human :) are just the most ambitious.
Orcas are smart enough to give each other distinct names and seem to understand the concept of verbs/nouns when identifying human words[1]. They could very well be smarter than us, but they'd never dominate the planet technologically: their flippers have no evolutionary path to developing fingers and thumbs.
[1] Some people point out that we've never learned orca language but they've learned ours. This is true, but it's also true that orca scientists have never kidnapped human children and intentionally tried to teach them orca language. So it's more of a poetic comparison than a scientific one.
[1] Some people point out that we've never learned orca language but they've learned ours. This is true, but it's also true that orca scientists have never kidnapped human children and intentionally tried to teach them orca language. So it's more of a poetic comparison than a scientific one.
Also, all the aquatic animals have one rather serious obstacle to developing an advanced/technological society: no way to make/use fire. Personally I think the only thing that really categorically distinguishes humans from other smart animals is that, the use of fire. Yeah, our language abilities are impressive too, but they may have fully developed after we already started using fire, telling stories around the campfire at night. Fire is what makes it possible for us to make use of more energy than we can physically consume; humans are best defined as the ape that mastered fire.
Obviously you're not wrong about fire being a major blocking point for sea creatures[1] - hard to make metals without fire. But possibly mermaids could "cook" their food via fermentation, e.g. putting food in a sealed swim bladder, then burying it in the sand. This could fulfill the same brain calorie requirements.
[1] Of course, maybe in Andromeda some sea-hackers are reading Hacker Sea-News and arguing land-based animals could never develop civilization because something-something.
[1] Of course, maybe in Andromeda some sea-hackers are reading Hacker Sea-News and arguing land-based animals could never develop civilization because something-something.
They might be learn to make use of underground volcanoes and gas vents. Maybe too deep for marine mammals?
Yeah, too deep to keep watch over I think, unless they went for air in shifts. There's also the issue that if you're on land, gravity means you don't need an airtight container to cook/smelt/etc. But underwater it would be hard to prevent things from leaking to the sea.
I think mermaids could do fish kebabs over a gas vent (though they'd lose a lot of food), but they couldn't use it as a kiln.
I think mermaids could do fish kebabs over a gas vent (though they'd lose a lot of food), but they couldn't use it as a kiln.
Heard the following joke a while back, seems pertinent:
Gaia making a mental note: "Hmm. The jury is definitely out on whether it's a good idea to combine large fore-brains with opposable thumbs.."
Gaia making a mental note: "Hmm. The jury is definitely out on whether it's a good idea to combine large fore-brains with opposable thumbs.."
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002909064/page/84/mode...
(1658) > Loqui vero eos easque posse, Iavani aiunt, sed non velle, ne ad labores cogerentur : ridicule me hercules.
"Indeed, the Javanese say that [the Orang-utans] are able to speak to them, but they do not want to, lest they should be forced to labor (pull the other one it's got bells on)"
(1658) > Loqui vero eos easque posse, Iavani aiunt, sed non velle, ne ad labores cogerentur : ridicule me hercules.
"Indeed, the Javanese say that [the Orang-utans] are able to speak to them, but they do not want to, lest they should be forced to labor (pull the other one it's got bells on)"
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars, and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man... for precisely the same reasons."
I am human (at least as far as I am aware), though I guess with the advent of LLMs that's becoming less evident.
It seems obvious to me, though I might be redefining "smartness" in a very human-centric way.
It seems pretty clear to me that humans are the smartest in terms of analytical ability; you hear things in the media all the time like "crows are smarter than 7 year old humans", but I think that really depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure I could teach a seven year old child that four quarters, ten dimes, twenty nickels, one hundred pennies, five dimes and ten nickels are all equal to the same amount. I don't even think that a seven year old human child would struggle with that terribly; I'm pretty sure I knew that five one-dollar bills was the same thing as a five dollar bill at that point. I don't think any other animal is capable of making those equivalencies though; I am pretty sure that a crow could not be taught this, no matter how hard you tried.
Now, it's entirely possible that assigning weight to this is demonstrating bias towards human concepts; this stuff might be obvious to humans because humans invented it, and thus comparing human and non-human ability in terms of human creations might be an entirely malformed premise. I know nothing about neurology or philosophy (or really anything outside cartoon trivia), so this is just kind of "gut feelings" on my end, which I will admit that that's not very firm ground to stand on.
It seems obvious to me, though I might be redefining "smartness" in a very human-centric way.
It seems pretty clear to me that humans are the smartest in terms of analytical ability; you hear things in the media all the time like "crows are smarter than 7 year old humans", but I think that really depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure I could teach a seven year old child that four quarters, ten dimes, twenty nickels, one hundred pennies, five dimes and ten nickels are all equal to the same amount. I don't even think that a seven year old human child would struggle with that terribly; I'm pretty sure I knew that five one-dollar bills was the same thing as a five dollar bill at that point. I don't think any other animal is capable of making those equivalencies though; I am pretty sure that a crow could not be taught this, no matter how hard you tried.
Now, it's entirely possible that assigning weight to this is demonstrating bias towards human concepts; this stuff might be obvious to humans because humans invented it, and thus comparing human and non-human ability in terms of human creations might be an entirely malformed premise. I know nothing about neurology or philosophy (or really anything outside cartoon trivia), so this is just kind of "gut feelings" on my end, which I will admit that that's not very firm ground to stand on.
> are all equal to the same amount
This may be modern schooling at work. I've heard that one motivating factor for the ancient egyptian's strange-to-us mathematical style ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction ) is that when they divvied stuff up, they needed to do it in a way that was more obviously fair than we do.
Example: we have four workers on our gang and need to pay them with 3L of beer and 3 loaves of bread at the end of the day. The beer is easy; just pour equal levels in three similar containers. For us, the loaves are easy too: give 3 workers 1 * 3/4 loaf and the last one 3 * 1/4 loaf. For the ancient egyptians (who might complain the last one either got smaller portions or more things) it'd be important to give everyone obviously the same portion: 1 * (1/2 + 1/4) loaf.
This may be modern schooling at work. I've heard that one motivating factor for the ancient egyptian's strange-to-us mathematical style ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_fraction ) is that when they divvied stuff up, they needed to do it in a way that was more obviously fair than we do.
Example: we have four workers on our gang and need to pay them with 3L of beer and 3 loaves of bread at the end of the day. The beer is easy; just pour equal levels in three similar containers. For us, the loaves are easy too: give 3 workers 1 * 3/4 loaf and the last one 3 * 1/4 loaf. For the ancient egyptians (who might complain the last one either got smaller portions or more things) it'd be important to give everyone obviously the same portion: 1 * (1/2 + 1/4) loaf.
Oh this is by no means limited to ancient times, try giving any two young children the same amount of food, but cut into different sized pieces - smaller cuts result in more pieces than the larger cuts... Guaranteed meltdown. :)
The simple solution- have one cut the food in half, but the other gets to choose their half first from the two.
That's a good time as any to learn that might makes right.
There is a pretty profound communication gap that you seem to be discounting.
A closer analogy might be trying to teach a 7 year old who speaks a different language. Or even deeper, a 7 year old child who only knows sign language and you do not.
The communication gap makes it very hard to figure out how much is a “intelligence” difference versus just being unable to even communicate the contents of the test.
A closer analogy might be trying to teach a 7 year old who speaks a different language. Or even deeper, a 7 year old child who only knows sign language and you do not.
The communication gap makes it very hard to figure out how much is a “intelligence” difference versus just being unable to even communicate the contents of the test.
Sure, but even then isn't that making an assumption that animals have the same capacity for communication that we do?
Let me try and explain; I don't speak Spanish, but if I had teach a 7 year old who only knew Spanish, presumably I, as a human, could learn Spanish and then teach the 7 year old whatever I needed to.
I'm not sure there's an equivalent "crow" language that is even possible for anyone to learn, at least in the same way that humans have language. I know that animals "communicate" in some senses with mating calls and the like, but I don't think they have anything even approaching "grammar" and "syntax".
But I suppose if you're going on a deeper level, if you had some way of directly communicating with a crow (like beaming information directly into their brain already translated in a form that they could understand), I still don't know that you could teach them that money equivalence analogy I used.
Again, I'm speaking out of my ass here, I don't know anything about this stuff, just spitballing.
Let me try and explain; I don't speak Spanish, but if I had teach a 7 year old who only knew Spanish, presumably I, as a human, could learn Spanish and then teach the 7 year old whatever I needed to.
I'm not sure there's an equivalent "crow" language that is even possible for anyone to learn, at least in the same way that humans have language. I know that animals "communicate" in some senses with mating calls and the like, but I don't think they have anything even approaching "grammar" and "syntax".
But I suppose if you're going on a deeper level, if you had some way of directly communicating with a crow (like beaming information directly into their brain already translated in a form that they could understand), I still don't know that you could teach them that money equivalence analogy I used.
Again, I'm speaking out of my ass here, I don't know anything about this stuff, just spitballing.
No. I am pointing out how being unable to communicate makes it very hard to determine intelligence. It is hard to determine if another human is smart without being able to speak the same language or explain the procedure and contents of the test.
Given that there is no known means to effectively communicate with animals, we are restricted to tests that do not demand shared communication to identify intelligence. These tests must be benchmarked on mutually unintelligible humans.
For instance, a grade school Chinese exam might be a good way of gauging the intelligence of Chinese children, but is a terrible way of gauging the intelligence of French children. Such a test is lousy in certain domains. We must be cognizant of such testing methodology limits in the design of animal intelligence tests.
tl;dr A test that would fail animals and speakers of a different language are not good tests. An animal intelligence test needs to at least pass all humans of comparable intelligence regardless of language to reach the bare minimum of acceptability.
Given that there is no known means to effectively communicate with animals, we are restricted to tests that do not demand shared communication to identify intelligence. These tests must be benchmarked on mutually unintelligible humans.
For instance, a grade school Chinese exam might be a good way of gauging the intelligence of Chinese children, but is a terrible way of gauging the intelligence of French children. Such a test is lousy in certain domains. We must be cognizant of such testing methodology limits in the design of animal intelligence tests.
tl;dr A test that would fail animals and speakers of a different language are not good tests. An animal intelligence test needs to at least pass all humans of comparable intelligence regardless of language to reach the bare minimum of acceptability.
Raven’s progressive matrices, obviously intended to test the intelligence of birds.
“four quarters, ten dimes, twenty nickels, one hundred pennies, five dimes and ten nickels are all equal to the same amount” - only a human could come up with something so unintuitive.
The crows can't believe our foolishness - a single silver dollar is shinier than even a hundred pennies!
Is this more of a limitation of our ability to communicate with the animals? If we could talk intelligibly with a crow, maybe we could teach it? Conversely, if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows, could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
> could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
Yes, children aren't born knowing languages so you teach the child the language and then you can see it understands it. You don't need to share a language to teach language. We haven't been able to teach any animal language at even 4 year level, so animals at least doesn't have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
Yes, children aren't born knowing languages so you teach the child the language and then you can see it understands it. You don't need to share a language to teach language. We haven't been able to teach any animal language at even 4 year level, so animals at least doesn't have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
You are going beyond the constraints, “if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows.”
We know we are able to teach children language because we have shared modes of communication through which we can observe their learning; speaking, writing, hand gestures.
> You do not need to share a language to teach a language
True, but I would argue that you need to share a mutually intelligible mode of communication.
How would you teach (and know that they have understood it correctly) the concept of monetary denominations to a 7-year old child if you were limited to communicating on the level you can with a crow? I have no idea, and would probably give up. But this does not necessarily tell us anything about the intelligence or capacity for learning language in the child, it tells us only of the gap in communication that we cannot bridge.
> so animals at least doesn’t have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
This does not necessarily follow. What follows is that humans are not able to teach animals human language on the same level as they are able to teach humans.
We know we are able to teach children language because we have shared modes of communication through which we can observe their learning; speaking, writing, hand gestures.
> You do not need to share a language to teach a language
True, but I would argue that you need to share a mutually intelligible mode of communication.
How would you teach (and know that they have understood it correctly) the concept of monetary denominations to a 7-year old child if you were limited to communicating on the level you can with a crow? I have no idea, and would probably give up. But this does not necessarily tell us anything about the intelligence or capacity for learning language in the child, it tells us only of the gap in communication that we cannot bridge.
> so animals at least doesn’t have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
This does not necessarily follow. What follows is that humans are not able to teach animals human language on the same level as they are able to teach humans.
We’ve not been able to reach any animal language at a four year old level that they can speak but I think we have taught animals language at a level that they are able to understand? Though I guess we can’t necessarily prove that understanding.
i think it depends how you quantify it. seems like there are many other species that might have things worked out better than we do
From the perspective of humans, humans behave best.
I think that's what we mean by intelligence. Valuable behavior.
I think that's what we mean by intelligence. Valuable behavior.
Just leaving this relevant SMBC here:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2867#comic
https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2867#comic
"Seventeen completed the study; three dropped out after showing slight signs of aggression or a lack of interest during the training period. "
Avian rage-quitting? So it's not just humans... I feel better now.
Avian rage-quitting? So it's not just humans... I feel better now.
Rage quitting or issues with rage WHEN quitting? I can imagine a game-addicted bird might get upset if you turn off the tablet or remove them from the gaming area. Similar to a toddler throwing a tantrum if you turn off a movie they are watching.
Birds totally experience rage at inanimate objects like humans. If an objects get in their way or doesn't behave the way they want for long enough, they'll start smacking it. Vicious and intelligent things.
To parrot the above, if you've never seen a goose in Florida get pissed off at a parked car bumper, you haven't lived.
They're hilariously persistent in their anger.
They're hilariously persistent in their anger.
I don't know what it is about geese but they seem like they are total jerks most of the time. Maybe just because they are one of the more common large wild animals humans can interact with and film and the geese make it clear they want to be left alone.
There was a corporate office park I encountered once that had a pond, and they had swans in it. The swans entertained themselves by chasing office workers to and from the carpark every morning.
... in my experience, if waterfowl come at you hissing, just look bigger and hiss back - as long as it's smaller than a swan.
... in my experience, if waterfowl come at you hissing, just look bigger and hiss back - as long as it's smaller than a swan.
I once worked at a similar office park. A pair of geese chased secretaries and CEOs alike. Very egalitarian. No one was spared. All ran to their cars in fear.
But there was one day when they met their match. Another pair of geese appeared like magic. Just wandering around like they owned the place. The original pair were not happy. They hissed and waved their wings in anger. The new pair did the same. Uncowed. The original pair decided to charge the interlopers and chase them off. Lowered their necks. Went full speed at them. Then slammed into the glass doors because they were attacking their own reflections.
They spent the rest of the day, greatly humbled, swimming around the office park pond. Gave everyone a break for a couple of days before resuming the usual CEO & secretary hunt.
But there was one day when they met their match. Another pair of geese appeared like magic. Just wandering around like they owned the place. The original pair were not happy. They hissed and waved their wings in anger. The new pair did the same. Uncowed. The original pair decided to charge the interlopers and chase them off. Lowered their necks. Went full speed at them. Then slammed into the glass doors because they were attacking their own reflections.
They spent the rest of the day, greatly humbled, swimming around the office park pond. Gave everyone a break for a couple of days before resuming the usual CEO & secretary hunt.
The main problem is that people get pissed if you treat a city swan like a farm swan, just punting it out of the way or throwing it by the neck.
I'm really enjoying the missing comma in the first sentence.
I, too, have watched that one video of a bird getting angry at a box of blueberries whose lid wouldn't stay up.
> "after showing slight signs of aggression"
And we do mourn the loss of the research assistants.
And we do mourn the loss of the research assistants.
Reminds me of the Ted Chiang (Arrival) short story "The Great Silence" https://electricliterature.com/the-great-silence-by-ted-chia...
Given the science that parrots are extremely social, this evidence that they enjoy calling each other, and the sheer number of wealthy people that own exactly one parrot, I expect that one of you is surely going to launch a social network for parrots any day now, and it will probably make money.
Great. Now my parrot goes on Beakbook and within a month he has a timeshare, a reverse mortgage, and three NFTs.
Also his favorite phrases to yell out when company comes over are "The Earth is Flat!", "Vaccines Suck!", and "I'm not flying, I'm traveling."
Also his favorite phrases to yell out when company comes over are "The Earth is Flat!", "Vaccines Suck!", and "I'm not flying, I'm traveling."
My pet Mitred Conure (Leonard) loves to mess with my iPad while I'm reading. On the other had, Leonard >hates< my iPhone. If he's on my shoulder he'll engage in a agressive display waving around and violently biting my shirt. If the phone is close enough to him he will attack the phone. I'm an extremely light phone user so its not like I ignore him when using the phone, but I do expect it is the size makes it competition for his bonding with me.
Does it have FaceID? Could it be the sensors emitting things bothers the birb?
I have a family member with a cockatoo (goffin) and it's generally afraid when someone has a phone in their hand. Pretty strange, we haven't figured out exactly what the issue is. Placing the phone down on a table to play some music seems fine, but it seems like once the phone is in someone's hands and moving around, maybe it resembles some kind of predator?? No clue!
Polarization of the screen might look super psychedelic (especially if moving) to a bird’s more advanced optical system?
We have a budgie (parakeet, a very small bird) that is obsessed with phones. Honestly anything reflective gets him going, but if you even reach for your pocket to pull your phone out he flies to you.
He just flirts with the phone and I haven't seen him try to use it. But if we put a picture of another budgie on the screen he will give it a gentle kiss. He's not as smart as some of these big birds, but there's a lot more depth than I would have ever expected. He has different phrases he uses for different people, and even a set that he exclusively says to videos of himself on an iPhone.
He just flirts with the phone and I haven't seen him try to use it. But if we put a picture of another budgie on the screen he will give it a gentle kiss. He's not as smart as some of these big birds, but there's a lot more depth than I would have ever expected. He has different phrases he uses for different people, and even a set that he exclusively says to videos of himself on an iPhone.
Some birds can see magnetic fields.
Sounds like we could all be better off having Leonard around!
My African Grey will engage a bit with the sampler app Keezy. I thought I had video of it on YouTube but I can't find it, maybe I never uploaded it.
https://keezy.net/
Thought the sounds would engage him but he's very entertained by the center black button expanding menu on that app. Now I need to make a bird game...
He likes both our phones and our tablets, mostly to chew on but he sometimes engages in weird social ways. He'll let me scratch his head while it is resting on the phone but otherwise not, only my wife gets to scratch his head usually. It isn't a usual one-person-bird bonding thing, I can otherwise interact with him normally, train him, and hang out with him but the head scratching is her time unless there's a phone there.
He also likes my stylus/Pencil but mostly because there's a nice soft tip to destroy on the end.
https://keezy.net/
Thought the sounds would engage him but he's very entertained by the center black button expanding menu on that app. Now I need to make a bird game...
He likes both our phones and our tablets, mostly to chew on but he sometimes engages in weird social ways. He'll let me scratch his head while it is resting on the phone but otherwise not, only my wife gets to scratch his head usually. It isn't a usual one-person-bird bonding thing, I can otherwise interact with him normally, train him, and hang out with him but the head scratching is her time unless there's a phone there.
He also likes my stylus/Pencil but mostly because there's a nice soft tip to destroy on the end.
As with humans and touchscreens, there are potential drawbacks — some familiar (“Participants in our study often emphasized the risk of their birds’ overuse, likening their screen time needs to those of children,” the paper reads); others uniquely avian (“When asked what risks tablet applications could pose to parrots, the most common answer was ‘potential damage to the tablet.’”)
Concerns about "potential damage to the tablet" are not uniquely avian.
The videos seem to show COTS tablets in cases that have been designed for children.
.
COTS: Commercial, Off-The-Shelf; a product that is commonly available for sale, and is fit for use with little or no modification.
Concerns about "potential damage to the tablet" are not uniquely avian.
The videos seem to show COTS tablets in cases that have been designed for children.
.
COTS: Commercial, Off-The-Shelf; a product that is commonly available for sale, and is fit for use with little or no modification.
What a wonderful site design. Everything, even the video clips, work without javascript execution. This is a site that a parrot itself could load and use.
On that topic, I recently saw a video of flocks of parrots that learned to manually spin a water pump windmill by flying up and sitting on the top of it on windless days.
On that topic, I recently saw a video of flocks of parrots that learned to manually spin a water pump windmill by flying up and sitting on the top of it on windless days.
I thought the exact opposite from a UX angle. Swiped down and it started scrolljacking and then I read the line about touch screens helping us “to snag Lightning deals on Prime Day” and it was enough for me to just stop reading and close the tab.
The article looked really interesting, but the scrolljacking made me leave immediately.
That's a punishment for enabling JavaScript. As GP stated, it's perfectly usable without JS.
I hated it but reader mode fixes all.
This is going to drive the accessibility crowd wild. Yeah, right now only a small number of your users are Parrots, but that would grow if they were properly catered for.
This seems like the first step towards building applications that birds will use for real tasks in the future. They probably can solve recapcha/hcapcha about as well as I can by now.
It seems it's only a matter of time until we get parrot farms used to bypass captchas.
Pretty good forward vision, better than I would have expected. Usuallly (non-predatory) birds turn their head to examine things. Maybe a curved screen would be one idea for better parrot UI.
They have some binocular vision too.
https://parrotjunkie.com/blogs/health/parrot-eyes-anatomy
https://parrotjunkie.com/blogs/health/parrot-eyes-anatomy
Are these the same folks that did the parrot videoconferencing thing?
These are cool.
These are cool.
Yep, same group.
Don't leave your parrot unsupervised with gadgets [0]. If they
get phone rage...
[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/parrot-versus-phone/index.ph...
[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/parrot-versus-phone/index.ph...
They need a little touch overlay or something for the screen so they don't need to use their tongues?
It's not as if they need multi-touch or other capabilities.
It's not as if they need multi-touch or other capabilities.
[deleted]
They are not really playing games, they are picking at dots appearing at the screen, as they would do with seeds and insects. So is it play a tablet game?