Attempting to interpret sperm whale clicks with AI, then talk back(hakaimagazine.com)
hakaimagazine.com
Attempting to interpret sperm whale clicks with AI, then talk back
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/are-we-on-the-verge-of-chatting-with-whales/
137 comments
I mean.. hate to be a party pooper, but just because we created a the equivalent of gpt3 for whales, does that mean we can do anything useful? Like talking to whales.. we haven't even established how their language works.
What language even is, is a good question. I read it once demonstrated as this; some species of monkey has a specific call they do when they see a panther, and it results in all the monkeys who hear it to run up their trees. Now what does this call mean? It could mean "jaguar alert!", pointing to a very specific concept-- a certain animal is here and we all know they're dangerous.
It could also mean "I'm scared!", and maybe it's just monkey see monkey do. It could also mean something more abstract, like a blood curdling scream-- there's no one thing that it means, but as humans we instinctively know that people don't scream like that unless something legitimately awful is happening. So maybe the call communicates emotion rather than an intellectual concept-- it's a call of fear that makes other monkeys who hear it also scared.
Just breaking down what animal language even _is_, is a challenge. I'm not optimistic on hearing any oral histories of whales, or even that they record history. I mean humans only started recording history for its own sake like 2000 years ago with herodotus. Before then we have tablets to keep track of stock, letters, and murals which were often made to depict the strength of the reigning emperor and the foes he vanquished. So maybe if we talk to whales it'll be a little like if aliens came to ancient Egypt to talk to the pharaoh; we'll just get a dictator whale telling us about all the other whales he's killed and how he's the greatest.. haha probably not that, though.
What language even is, is a good question. I read it once demonstrated as this; some species of monkey has a specific call they do when they see a panther, and it results in all the monkeys who hear it to run up their trees. Now what does this call mean? It could mean "jaguar alert!", pointing to a very specific concept-- a certain animal is here and we all know they're dangerous.
It could also mean "I'm scared!", and maybe it's just monkey see monkey do. It could also mean something more abstract, like a blood curdling scream-- there's no one thing that it means, but as humans we instinctively know that people don't scream like that unless something legitimately awful is happening. So maybe the call communicates emotion rather than an intellectual concept-- it's a call of fear that makes other monkeys who hear it also scared.
Just breaking down what animal language even _is_, is a challenge. I'm not optimistic on hearing any oral histories of whales, or even that they record history. I mean humans only started recording history for its own sake like 2000 years ago with herodotus. Before then we have tablets to keep track of stock, letters, and murals which were often made to depict the strength of the reigning emperor and the foes he vanquished. So maybe if we talk to whales it'll be a little like if aliens came to ancient Egypt to talk to the pharaoh; we'll just get a dictator whale telling us about all the other whales he's killed and how he's the greatest.. haha probably not that, though.
Recording the feats of the emperor is already miles beyond what whales probably do and I d go as far as to call that recorded History,since the goal of writing is to allow the dead to speak to the future, a megalomaniac endeavour only overly inflated brains could think about.
After seeing that poor monkey spending his life learning sign language just to ask for more bananas and never asking a tough question, Im a bit pesimistic.
After seeing that poor monkey spending his life learning sign language just to ask for more bananas and never asking a tough question, Im a bit pesimistic.
Alex the African Grey parrot is I think the most developed example we have of animals learning human language and concepts. Alex is notable for being the first non-human to ask an existential question, asking, "What color?" when seeing himself in the mirror. He quickly learned he was grey.
I think your entire post is hugely optimistic despite the negative overtone! The fact that other people see there are these important and fundamental questions that can be addressed by this nascent field gives me hope that this won't be another one off attempt like so many before. I'm very hopeful that it can snowball due to the hype around machine learning even if I'm personally skeptical that machine learning is a particularly fruitful avenue.
I would expect the vast majority of their comms to be :
Nice water over here
Loads of food here
I'm down to F, anyone else?
Do we really have any evidence that suggests it'll be anything else?
Nice water over here
Loads of food here
I'm down to F, anyone else?
Do we really have any evidence that suggests it'll be anything else?
The best example I know offhand is the custom hunting styles of different orca pods. Given that orcas also play I find it more likely that there is rich communication than not.
Orcas are mostly silent, especially when hunting, iirc.
Actually no, orcas echolocate a lot and also exchange quite a few calls while hunting fish (based on acoustic tag data).
“He’s lonely.”
No. You’re lonely!
No. You’re lonely!
My less pessimistic (dare I say realistic, ha!) take is that whales will have little of note to say. Complex communication (in contrast to "simple" communication like the evocation of emotions, e.g. fear, anger, sadness, etc.) does seem to require the biological need for it, otherwise the genes that control factors that manifest it ("depth" and richness of sense, proclivity for specific mental models, etc.) do not get reinforced and "bred" into the animal.
The other side to this is that communication is mostly non-verbal. For example, chimpanzees, perhaps the most communicationally-advanced animals, besides us, do have a few different "verbal" signals they use. But there is also a richness of non-verbal communication (body language, facial expression, using their hands, etc.). And then these signals have to be also interpreted by other chimpanzees, thus training them to develop new mental models about these signals (and leading way to complex communication).
Whereas all whales really have are clicks, whistles, and "pulsed calls." Along with a tail with much less dexterity than a hand (but is still used in communicating amongst themselves). The richness of their communication is much less than the chimp, so so far it seems they can only use it for rudimentary purposes (mating, hunting/intelligent organization and navigation, and figuring out who is part of the "tribe"/pod).
But in that vein, they're still closer to a chimp than they are to us. Humans have evolved such complex mental models for the world and other humans within it, that all animals are basically on the same, much lower level in comparison.
On a less relevant topic, whales are social animals that stick together, make close bonds with family, and do have a certain "culture" that gets passed down, and is constantly morphing a la "whale songs." It almost pains me to think about what emotions a whale would feel (if it even does) about friends and family that have been hunted to death.
The other side to this is that communication is mostly non-verbal. For example, chimpanzees, perhaps the most communicationally-advanced animals, besides us, do have a few different "verbal" signals they use. But there is also a richness of non-verbal communication (body language, facial expression, using their hands, etc.). And then these signals have to be also interpreted by other chimpanzees, thus training them to develop new mental models about these signals (and leading way to complex communication).
Whereas all whales really have are clicks, whistles, and "pulsed calls." Along with a tail with much less dexterity than a hand (but is still used in communicating amongst themselves). The richness of their communication is much less than the chimp, so so far it seems they can only use it for rudimentary purposes (mating, hunting/intelligent organization and navigation, and figuring out who is part of the "tribe"/pod).
But in that vein, they're still closer to a chimp than they are to us. Humans have evolved such complex mental models for the world and other humans within it, that all animals are basically on the same, much lower level in comparison.
On a less relevant topic, whales are social animals that stick together, make close bonds with family, and do have a certain "culture" that gets passed down, and is constantly morphing a la "whale songs." It almost pains me to think about what emotions a whale would feel (if it even does) about friends and family that have been hunted to death.
> Lets get some whale engineers working on the hard problems please.
Somehow I pictured whales as the engineers in this sentence. It makes it even better.
Somehow I pictured whales as the engineers in this sentence. It makes it even better.
That was the intent!
You can do it today with other species. We are lucky to still be surrounded by all kinds of animals: mammals, birds, and even insects.
Of course, in order to talk, you have to spend a lot of time listening first. And what they say cannot often be translated to human talk.
In order to make friends, you have to give first. Our society teaches us to stay away from nature and leave it be, so you have to break past that.
The rewards are breathtaking and totally worth the effort.
Of course, in order to talk, you have to spend a lot of time listening first. And what they say cannot often be translated to human talk.
In order to make friends, you have to give first. Our society teaches us to stay away from nature and leave it be, so you have to break past that.
The rewards are breathtaking and totally worth the effort.
Your point stands, but I want something wholly different from that. I want the equivalent of the LHC for cross species communication. You're telling me to go do some communing with physics, because we've already got some good textbooks on quantum mechanics.
> I want the equivalent of the LHC for cross species communication.
This is not a valid concept. What would the "equivalent of the LHC for communication between ordinary Americans and the Twitter API" look like? What uses would it have?
There's nothing out there that can receive arbitrary messages. Communication -- of any kind, with anything -- is limited to messages that the other party is capable of receiving.
This is not a valid concept. What would the "equivalent of the LHC for communication between ordinary Americans and the Twitter API" look like? What uses would it have?
There's nothing out there that can receive arbitrary messages. Communication -- of any kind, with anything -- is limited to messages that the other party is capable of receiving.
This is Wittgenstein's argument about why we'll never communicate with lions (iirc) right?
I'm not sure I understand your complaint or why you've caught the Twitter API into it?
I imagine a center for cross species communication research would coordinate scientists across a couple important fields also interested in the question and allocate their resources to the research which seems most promising to make progress. Just like any other institute.
I imagine the fields would be biology zoology linguistics computation and probably since experts for the specific target species.
I imagine a center for cross species communication research would coordinate scientists across a couple important fields also interested in the question and allocate their resources to the research which seems most promising to make progress. Just like any other institute.
I imagine the fields would be biology zoology linguistics computation and probably since experts for the specific target species.
> I'm not sure I understand your complaint or why you've caught the Twitter API into it?
Because I want you to tell me what you think communication between a human and the Twitter API would look like. I have taken the position that you've produced a bunch of words without bothering to think about what those words are supposed to mean, with the result that in fact they have no meaning and you're attempting to refer to a concept that cannot actually exist.
A general theory of cross-species communication is significantly more of an ill-defined problem than a specific theory of human-Twitter API communication, but it must include the human-Twitter API case, so it's a useful example to think about.
> I imagine a center for cross species communication research would coordinate scientists across a couple important fields also interested in the question and allocate their resources to the research which seems most promising to make progress. Just like any other institute.
Ah, just like any other institute.
Certainly you can have people dress up as scientists and act like they're scientists -- just like any other institute! -- but this is only a good idea if you think they can accomplish something by doing it. What you're describing is a pure cargo cult. Their only goal is to appear to be similar to other, more useful people.
We already have many experts in cross-species communication. We call them animal trainers.
Because I want you to tell me what you think communication between a human and the Twitter API would look like. I have taken the position that you've produced a bunch of words without bothering to think about what those words are supposed to mean, with the result that in fact they have no meaning and you're attempting to refer to a concept that cannot actually exist.
A general theory of cross-species communication is significantly more of an ill-defined problem than a specific theory of human-Twitter API communication, but it must include the human-Twitter API case, so it's a useful example to think about.
> I imagine a center for cross species communication research would coordinate scientists across a couple important fields also interested in the question and allocate their resources to the research which seems most promising to make progress. Just like any other institute.
Ah, just like any other institute.
Certainly you can have people dress up as scientists and act like they're scientists -- just like any other institute! -- but this is only a good idea if you think they can accomplish something by doing it. What you're describing is a pure cargo cult. Their only goal is to appear to be similar to other, more useful people.
We already have many experts in cross-species communication. We call them animal trainers.
Brain size may not necessarily correlate with intelligence because it isn't the number of neurons, it's the organization and optimization of them.
Just like we make much more powerful CPU chips in the same volume of silicon as before.
And it could be that it just isn't necessary for whales to optimize brain density, like it is for humans and crows.
Just like we make much more powerful CPU chips in the same volume of silicon as before.
And it could be that it just isn't necessary for whales to optimize brain density, like it is for humans and crows.
I’ve read various stats about the human brain using a surprising percentage of our overall energy budget. I wonder how much energy a whale brain uses (overall and per kg)? While it’s not the only relevant stat, TDP does provide a clue as to processing power.
Agreed! But afaik the neuron process "node" across species is not so different. The relevant metaphor I would think is humans have pcie and a large register count while many (all?) others are still on pata and register starved. Maybe a real biologist can come in with more facts and less bad metaphors
So far it is looking like the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex is the best indicator of intelligence.
http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/227/the-paradox-of-the-elephan...
We started as basic primates, started cooking our food, getting more nutrition, allowing our guts to shrink, allowing us to spend more energy on our brains, growing more and more neurons in the important bits, at which point things spiraled away using our new language and technology to make better technology.
(Not a real biologist)
http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/227/the-paradox-of-the-elephan...
We started as basic primates, started cooking our food, getting more nutrition, allowing our guts to shrink, allowing us to spend more energy on our brains, growing more and more neurons in the important bits, at which point things spiraled away using our new language and technology to make better technology.
(Not a real biologist)
We've invested quite a lot in trying to communicate with other ape species. There's very little to show for it. Koko the signing gorilla is the biggest success and 1) that was conducted hugely unethically 2) had a closely-involved researcher/caretaker/interpreter. Without the lead researcher communication was very limited.
I think the actual investment is shockingly little. Even compared to a moderately sized zoo the investment is tiny. It's like a dozen individual people trying over the past five decades.
> God I cannot wait to talk to whales. Their oral histories must be incredible.
What makes you think they'd have oral histories?
What makes you think they'd have oral histories?
I think it's a decent enough guess and I'd give better then even odds on it.
Whales have the capacity to communicate. Stories are more effective than unadorned facts at being remembered (for humans anyways). Remembering important facts is a huge advantage in almost any context. The biggest jump imo is the second one, but I find it unlikely that whales would have a radically different memory storage and retrieval model than humans
Whales have the capacity to communicate. Stories are more effective than unadorned facts at being remembered (for humans anyways). Remembering important facts is a huge advantage in almost any context. The biggest jump imo is the second one, but I find it unlikely that whales would have a radically different memory storage and retrieval model than humans
There is nothing at all that hints to that though. It makes me think of people who believe their dogs can "smile" the same way humans do.
Humans are very good at two things, seeing patterns and projecting their own feelings/experiences on other living creatures (or inanimate objects even). We're the exception, not the norm.
You can't "guess" or rely on intuition for these topics, that's how we got religions, the geocentric system, &c.
Humans are very good at two things, seeing patterns and projecting their own feelings/experiences on other living creatures (or inanimate objects even). We're the exception, not the norm.
You can't "guess" or rely on intuition for these topics, that's how we got religions, the geocentric system, &c.
Of course you can guess and rely on intuition. The key aspect of science is the feedback loop with data to refine/reject those guesses and intuition.
Its also hilarious to me that you call out my guess and then make your own unsubstantiated claims, which I'm sure feel "intuitive" to you.
Its also hilarious to me that you call out my guess and then make your own unsubstantiated claims, which I'm sure feel "intuitive" to you.
> Whales have the capability to far outstrip humans in intelligence (if you accept that neuron count and neuron connections are the raw inputs).
Understood normally, the raw input also includes the software installed in the whale's brain. This limits the potential capability of whales.
If you were to overwrite that with software of your own design, you'd have a robot in the body of a whale, but not an actual whale.
Understood normally, the raw input also includes the software installed in the whale's brain. This limits the potential capability of whales.
If you were to overwrite that with software of your own design, you'd have a robot in the body of a whale, but not an actual whale.
There's no software in a whale's brain, or in a human's brain.
As has been discussed in a couple of articles linked on HN recently, it might not even be useful to think about brain function as computation.
As has been discussed in a couple of articles linked on HN recently, it might not even be useful to think about brain function as computation.
> There's no software in a whale's brain, or in a human's brain.
Sure, and man is the only animal with no instincts, ensouled cells are metaphysically different from soulless cells, and fossils were placed in the ground as a test of your faith.
Sure, and man is the only animal with no instincts, ensouled cells are metaphysically different from soulless cells, and fossils were placed in the ground as a test of your faith.
Do we even know that whales communicate with conscious intent? What if the sounds they make were mere reflexes driven by some internal state like adrenaline, sex or hunger hormones?
We do, actually, for dolphins at least. Researchers did an experiment where dolphins had to coordinate their actions (push 2 buttons together) without seeing each other. So they coordinated their actions acoustically by communicating when they should push the buttons.
> If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.
They will sing us the song of the great holocaust of the 1800s, of the day the metal surface whales turned the skies red and nothing could save them.
Personally I want to know if they still tell tales of the hero whale who killed one of the ships in 1820: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_(whaleship)
> Their oral histories must be incredible.
Everything was idyllic in the before times. Then the human ships arrived and ruined everything. Some of them killed us. Others ignored us but polluted the ocean with noise so we couldn't hear each other's whale songs anymore.
Everything was idyllic in the before times. Then the human ships arrived and ruined everything. Some of them killed us. Others ignored us but polluted the ocean with noise so we couldn't hear each other's whale songs anymore.
Maybe! But I find that an awfully self centered view. I imagine humans (boats?) will play a (perhaps significant) aspect in their vision of the world. But I'd be surprised if it was any bigger than e.g. malaria is for humans.
I would say that's lowballing it considerably[1]. Whaling nearly drove sperm whales to extinction until they were protected in the 1970s.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_whale#Relationship_with_...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_whale#Relationship_with_...
Fair enough
There have been a number of Orca attacks on yachts in the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Cadiz/Portugal area recently.
Perhaps they're hungry. Perhaps they're pissed. No one knows.
Historically, orca attacks on humans - outside of captivity - have been very rare.
Perhaps they're hungry. Perhaps they're pissed. No one knows.
Historically, orca attacks on humans - outside of captivity - have been very rare.
I wonder if this type of research itself might at some point influence an animal’s language.
In this study, if the researchers were to consistently play a particular call when a school of fish were nearby I wonder if younger whales might learn the human produced call to mean a school of fish. Is it possible this research could instead lead to us presenting a species with our interpretation of their language which we would then have a much clearer understanding of?
Rather that just us understanding them, I wonder how this might help them understand us.
In this study, if the researchers were to consistently play a particular call when a school of fish were nearby I wonder if younger whales might learn the human produced call to mean a school of fish. Is it possible this research could instead lead to us presenting a species with our interpretation of their language which we would then have a much clearer understanding of?
Rather that just us understanding them, I wonder how this might help them understand us.
Does the AI training dataset involve dropping a whale from great heights ?
"Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I?"
https://www.thecharacterquotes.com/the-whale
"Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I?"
https://www.thecharacterquotes.com/the-whale
This sounds like a nightmare for the whales, to have an AI babbling into the whales shared communication channel.
Hey y’all, over by the Horn of Africa there’s a big school of diamond-studded squirrels. Break a leg.
Sounds nice but they'll probably end up creating a psychological warfare weapon for use against whales. The whales will be confused and disoriented by non-sense sounds coming from a fake whale.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Finally, we'll be able to charge them fair market rates for their access to our fishing rights
Imagine talking and communicating with other whales through frequency waves is something. If this is quite possible, we should understand how they speak and have a language different from other animals and sea creatures.
The first commercial use will be slamming them with advertising
AI doesn't understand context. I highly doubt AI will be able to convey anything meaningful, and if they can how would we know?
Perhaps they should call the system 'Gavag-AI"
i thought this was about advertising.
The idea of finally talking to something we’ve been killing for resources for centuries is kinda weird.
To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.
Edit: Because the topic is about communicating with Whales and my response was to a comment about hunting them, I thought it would be appropriate to reference something Spock said in Star Trek IV. Colloquially known as "The one with the whales".
Edit: Because the topic is about communicating with Whales and my response was to a comment about hunting them, I thought it would be appropriate to reference something Spock said in Star Trek IV. Colloquially known as "The one with the whales".
Game Theory would probably say that it is logical, though at the end self-defeating.
Usually the species is hunted for something valuable, and that means that the species becoming rarer translates to higher prices. So the people who successfully kill the very last specimens will get rich from them; an absolutely logical motivation, even if it has disastrous consequences down the line. If you can get ten million dollars for the very last whale on Earth, it is better than spending your life hunting some ubiquitous not-whales for 5000 dollars each.
Of course, the end result is bad - the entire industry disappears - but so it is in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Usually the species is hunted for something valuable, and that means that the species becoming rarer translates to higher prices. So the people who successfully kill the very last specimens will get rich from them; an absolutely logical motivation, even if it has disastrous consequences down the line. If you can get ten million dollars for the very last whale on Earth, it is better than spending your life hunting some ubiquitous not-whales for 5000 dollars each.
Of course, the end result is bad - the entire industry disappears - but so it is in the Prisoner's Dilemma.
some mystics have said plainly for a long while that logic-reason by itself enables insane conclusions and perhaps actions. I agree.
Wow, new heights in game theory nonsense
I know you're simply explaining the logic but it's still a psychopath's logic
I know you're simply explaining the logic but it's still a psychopath's logic
Well, the Tragedy of the Commons can also be modeled in game theoretic terms. This is logical only in the extremely oversimplified given scope. If you ignore all externalities (possibly including your own future needs), resource exploitation can appear to be a rational course of action.
But ignoring them, I would say, is not in fact logical or rational.
But ignoring them, I would say, is not in fact logical or rational.
Not really. This happens pretty frequently. Hunting species to extinction, cutting down trees for fuel, etc.
Well, I didn't say we have a shortage of psychos, did I?
Hunting the white rhinos to extinction is totally fine. It's just game theory, you guys.
Hunting the white rhinos to extinction is totally fine. It's just game theory, you guys.
I don't see any logical issue with that.
Logic makes no moral judgements, and also logic doesn't care about the future, if it doesn't include the invididual.
(Here logic is also a stand-in for "maximizing benefit").
If one/a group hunts whales to extintion and makes a huge profit (say, enough to retire), they would be logically sound (if morally bankrupt) to not care less if there are no whales left.
Logic makes no moral judgements, and also logic doesn't care about the future, if it doesn't include the invididual.
(Here logic is also a stand-in for "maximizing benefit").
If one/a group hunts whales to extintion and makes a huge profit (say, enough to retire), they would be logically sound (if morally bankrupt) to not care less if there are no whales left.
It's a shame that the explicit study of logic, ethics, and aesthetics isn't really part of the secondary school curriculum anymore. Everyone should be able to tell whether a problem falls in the domain of logic or ethics.
Yeah. And even "maximizing benefit/utility" is not logic (I went with that, since at best, it's what many mean by "makes logical sense").
Logic could as well be used perfectly well for minimizing benefit, it's just a tool for forming and evaluating syllogisms based on a set of axioms.
Logic could as well be used perfectly well for minimizing benefit, it's just a tool for forming and evaluating syllogisms based on a set of axioms.
It is logical if the species poses an existential threat. Consider our efforts to eradicate certain diseases caused by bacteria.
Viruses, anyway.
Nobody who knows basic biology has any illusions about the prospect of driving even a single species of bacteria to extinction.
And anyway Russia probably still stockpiles literal tons of smallpox virus frozen underground in Siberian laboratories.
Nobody who knows basic biology has any illusions about the prospect of driving even a single species of bacteria to extinction.
And anyway Russia probably still stockpiles literal tons of smallpox virus frozen underground in Siberian laboratories.
There are many (maybe all) examples from nature in which resources will get consumed until they are gone. "Logic" has nothing to do with it. That doesn't mean we should hunt species to extinction, but its definitely a natural thing to do.
> "Logic" has nothing to do with it.
I guess the GP post is simply a direct quote from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (where IIRC Spock says something along those lines while he and Kirk visit a 20th century museum).
Whales, their extinction and communicating with them was central to the plot of that film.
EDIT: Ok, I looked it up. This exact quote is in the movie, verbatim, in the scene I mentioned. At around 00:47:39
I guess the GP post is simply a direct quote from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" (where IIRC Spock says something along those lines while he and Kirk visit a 20th century museum).
Whales, their extinction and communicating with them was central to the plot of that film.
EDIT: Ok, I looked it up. This exact quote is in the movie, verbatim, in the scene I mentioned. At around 00:47:39
Correct. I think we're entering an era where Star Trek is largely forgotten.
As opposed to two decades ago (right column): https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001
As opposed to two decades ago (right column): https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/icq-2001
Aye, it's a 35 year old movie. Which is stunning for me. I recall going to the theater to see it with my parents. It was the last movie we all saw together.
"Would now be a good time for a colorful metaphor?"
One of the things that separates many humans from other kinds of animals is the ability to choose against instinct. To hold a hot cup for a little longer, enduring the pain so we don't drop it and break it. There are even some arguments that consciousness evolved to allow humans to do exactly that sort of thing; contradict hard-wired impulses.
That we are so terrible at modesty of consumption in groups is the real tragedy.
That we are so terrible at modesty of consumption in groups is the real tragedy.
We should probably pick “whoops, our bad” as one of the early translation goals.
Then the whales will learn not to trust anything we say.
Happened to indigenous people in the Americas.
Happened to indigenous people in the Americas.
That seems like it should be lesson #1 when dealing with humans; that we lie, effortlessly.
But now these clever people will bring incentives etc to entice these creatures. Just depends on how much economic incentive these whales bring to the table.
Happens to many politicians by rich/powerful people across the world.
Happens to many politicians by rich/powerful people across the world.
"White Man speak with forked tongue".
Only the "finally". We've been talking to other humans and then killing them for resources for a very long time.
We've always been able to talk with those humans though and most of the times we fight them for their resources, not their bodies.
Humans were often raped and enslaved when they were pillaged. Sometimes used for food or entertainment.
It is a sad truth that humans had little trouble viewing other humans as resources.
It is a sad truth that humans had little trouble viewing other humans as resources.
You're right. Before recent centuries wars were often fought to acquire slaves since it equaled free work power and women to breed children in case of population declines. It just stroke me while reading a bit of trivia about the Vikings show I have been watching two seasons of and yet I didn't realize their motivation for raiding and plundering was acquiring human resources.
Not that different to talking to colonized people and ex-slave descendants...
I can't wait for Moby Dick to be translated into spermwhalese.
we've done that with people for a very long time.
Even today, there are reports of african pygmies still being treated as slaves or hunted for both sport and cannibalism[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Pygmies#Enslavement,_c...
Even today, there are reports of african pygmies still being treated as slaves or hunted for both sport and cannibalism[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Pygmies#Enslavement,_c...
Guarantee they just want us to shut the fuck up.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've been doing it repeatedly, and we're hoping for something different here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please refrain from knee-jerk reactions to short comments containing "bad words".
The comment is actually substantive if you think about it for a second. Heuristics are right most of the time until they aren't.
Also see pg essay "Succinctness is Power": http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html
The comment is actually substantive if you think about it for a second. Heuristics are right most of the time until they aren't.
Also see pg essay "Succinctness is Power": http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html
Not sure why this is getting downvoted; it's probably very true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammals_and_sonar
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/science/oceans-whales-noi...
> Some scientists say the noises from air guns, ship sonar and general tanker traffic can cause the gradual or even outright death of sea creatures, from the giants to the tiniest — whales, dolphins, fish, squid, octopuses and even plankton. Other effects include impairing animals’ hearing, brain hemorrhaging and the drowning out of communication sounds important for survival, experts say.
> A 2017 study, for example, found that a loud blast, softer than the sound of a seismic air gun, killed nearly two-thirds of the zooplankton in three-quarters of a mile on either side. Tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain, zooplankton provide a food source for everything from great whales to shrimp. Krill, a tiny crustacean vital to whales and other animals, were especially hard hit, according to one study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammals_and_sonar
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/science/oceans-whales-noi...
> Some scientists say the noises from air guns, ship sonar and general tanker traffic can cause the gradual or even outright death of sea creatures, from the giants to the tiniest — whales, dolphins, fish, squid, octopuses and even plankton. Other effects include impairing animals’ hearing, brain hemorrhaging and the drowning out of communication sounds important for survival, experts say.
> A 2017 study, for example, found that a loud blast, softer than the sound of a seismic air gun, killed nearly two-thirds of the zooplankton in three-quarters of a mile on either side. Tiny organisms at the bottom of the food chain, zooplankton provide a food source for everything from great whales to shrimp. Krill, a tiny crustacean vital to whales and other animals, were especially hard hit, according to one study.
Hum, is interesting but, trying to talk with sperm whales has its own special type of risks. The whale reply could kill you.
Whale: “Hey, I found some fish.”
Whale Eliza: “Interesting. How does that make you feel?
Whale: “What the fuck?”
Whale Eliza: “Interesting. How does that make you feel?
Whale: “What the fuck?”
"If a lion could speak we wouldn't understand him." - Wittgenstein
https://ideasandaction.com/if-a-lion-could-speak/
https://ideasandaction.com/if-a-lion-could-speak/
Wouldn't simple sentences with the structure subject-verb-object be universal to any rational speaker?
A lion could say "I want food", or "I see dog", or "dog eats food".
I don't see why a lion's worldview could be so different from ours that this wouldn't be possible.
A lion could say "I want food", or "I see dog", or "dog eats food".
I don't see why a lion's worldview could be so different from ours that this wouldn't be possible.
Just to problems off the top of my head;
In order to understand "I" you have to be able to understand there's an "other". Do lions understand others are also fully capable beings? Or are they kinda of "egotistical" the way a human baby is, where they just don't really understand the concept of "other people".
And do they understand what "seeing" is, so that they can use it in a sentence like that? That's also abstract, it communicates that you as a being are using your sense of sight to see a certain thing. Are lions conscious of the fact that they're seeing, or do they just see things?
In order to understand "I" you have to be able to understand there's an "other". Do lions understand others are also fully capable beings? Or are they kinda of "egotistical" the way a human baby is, where they just don't really understand the concept of "other people".
And do they understand what "seeing" is, so that they can use it in a sentence like that? That's also abstract, it communicates that you as a being are using your sense of sight to see a certain thing. Are lions conscious of the fact that they're seeing, or do they just see things?
Well, perhaps the lion has more primitive cognitive capabilities, but the premise was that we wouldn't understand the lion (not the other way around).
You should look up the Far Side comic where a professor invents a dog translator. Turns out the only thing dogs say is 'Hey! Hey! Hey!'.
I can easily believe that's actually true.
Dogs would probably be equally disappointed to learn that they only thing we glean from how they smell is that they need a shower!
Dogs would probably be equally disappointed to learn that they only thing we glean from how they smell is that they need a shower!
Not sure if it's the case with whales, bit as far as I know there is no recorded use of questions in the animal kingdom - all communication seems to be enunciative, or orders. Questions are exclusive to humans...
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking in the research. The article mentions the Great Tits having 2 calls for alarm, which if made out of order have no effect, and calling that grammar. You could also call it a single call. Grammar to me means being able to construct new meaning from parts. While interesting and maybe useful, if this sort of research bears fruit I believe lots of people waxing lyrical over how amazing it will be to talk with the animals are going to be rather disappointed. Basic conversation requires a vocabulary in the hundreds, and so far it seems we are looking at word-equivalents maybe in the dozens, in the more capable species. And then you have all the concepts we take for granted except in infants, such as 'I' and 'you' and self awareness.
TIL - I expected that the chimpanzee sign language experiments would be a counterexample, but apparently the (IMHO surprising) lack of question usage was one of their outcomes.
Yup. I knew it because I fell in a Wikipedia rabbit hole about animal intelligence not long ago.
It was very intriguing to me, as someone with no previous knowledge, how this was assumed to be an only human trait yet the fact was pretty much glossed over.
I find fascinating the idea of a step between being stuck with the information that others emit and being able to and request arbitrary information at will, being part of what made us what we are. Once you think about it, it really is an amazing advantage.
It was very intriguing to me, as someone with no previous knowledge, how this was assumed to be an only human trait yet the fact was pretty much glossed over.
I find fascinating the idea of a step between being stuck with the information that others emit and being able to and request arbitrary information at will, being part of what made us what we are. Once you think about it, it really is an amazing advantage.
I'm working on a sort-of language as a side project and have fallen down many of the same rabbit holes that you have. I don't think questions are one of the key features that make language special because in the language I'm working on questions are an emergent property.
There are two structural words in my language, "propose" and "tell". From these words you can build complicated ideas such as lying ("I propose to you: you propose to him: [malicious plan]. [real plan]."). Asking a question can be done with "I propose you tell me ...". Instead of saying "I think", you say something like "I tell myself".
The feature of language that seems the most surprisingly powerful is placeholder words. The words like "someone", "somewhere", "somehow". I call these the entropy words because they are the words for the information you don't have. They represent sets of possible things rather than a literal specific thing.
"someone moved to Silessia".
In fact you can generally substitute a set of things anywhere you would use a literal thing. Any set will do. For example
"John/George/Ringo/Paul played in the Beatles."
Adjectives can be understood as just specifying a set using set-builder notation. For example "short man" is "{x in Men such that short(x)}".
Just from set builder notation, first order logic comes along for free. I originally thought my language would need logic words, but this is not the case.
There are two structural words in my language, "propose" and "tell". From these words you can build complicated ideas such as lying ("I propose to you: you propose to him: [malicious plan]. [real plan]."). Asking a question can be done with "I propose you tell me ...". Instead of saying "I think", you say something like "I tell myself".
The feature of language that seems the most surprisingly powerful is placeholder words. The words like "someone", "somewhere", "somehow". I call these the entropy words because they are the words for the information you don't have. They represent sets of possible things rather than a literal specific thing.
"someone moved to Silessia".
In fact you can generally substitute a set of things anywhere you would use a literal thing. Any set will do. For example
"John/George/Ringo/Paul played in the Beatles."
Adjectives can be understood as just specifying a set using set-builder notation. For example "short man" is "{x in Men such that short(x)}".
Just from set builder notation, first order logic comes along for free. I originally thought my language would need logic words, but this is not the case.
>The feature of language that seems the most surprisingly powerful is placeholder words. The words like "someone", "somewhere", "somehow". >I call these the entropy words because they are the words for the information you don't have. They represent sets of possible things rather than a literal specific thing.
As an aside, you might know this, but that's how questions are formed in Chinese. You basically use an enunciative phrase with a placeholder word in the information you're missing ("this pencil is whose", "the dog is where", etc).
Going back to the point, I'm not sure whether the limitations of the language are actually a limitation of the brain that uses it. Sure, if you get into your mind that you want to ask a question, and the opposing party is able to understand that, even gestures will do with a little bit of ingenuity. But that has a lot of prerequisites: you need understanding that some information can be useful to you, understanding that other living beings own that information, some abstract thinking to express an idea that is not literal...
It's not even about questions I think, there's a jump between "tiger here now" and "tiger potentially here at some point, watch".
But still, questions particularly seem to be a clear cut "non existent outside of humans", even in weird emergent forms. There must be a reason they're not there, right?
As an aside, you might know this, but that's how questions are formed in Chinese. You basically use an enunciative phrase with a placeholder word in the information you're missing ("this pencil is whose", "the dog is where", etc).
Going back to the point, I'm not sure whether the limitations of the language are actually a limitation of the brain that uses it. Sure, if you get into your mind that you want to ask a question, and the opposing party is able to understand that, even gestures will do with a little bit of ingenuity. But that has a lot of prerequisites: you need understanding that some information can be useful to you, understanding that other living beings own that information, some abstract thinking to express an idea that is not literal...
It's not even about questions I think, there's a jump between "tiger here now" and "tiger potentially here at some point, watch".
But still, questions particularly seem to be a clear cut "non existent outside of humans", even in weird emergent forms. There must be a reason they're not there, right?
Have you looked into the concept of "theory of mind" in developmental psychology and the relevant experiments on children e.g. the "false belief task"?
IMHO that is essential to the whole concept of questions; questions only make sense if you have an internal model of someone else's mind that contains different knowledge than you have.
Animals which do not have this capability (I'm not well informed on this, but it looks possible that primates don't, e.g. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ascch/Celia's%20pdfs/1998theoryofmin... would be fundamentally limited below the level of very young kids; and perhaps it's not a coincidence that the theory of mind seems to form at about the same age when kids have seem to have an excess of "why" questions about everything.
IMHO that is essential to the whole concept of questions; questions only make sense if you have an internal model of someone else's mind that contains different knowledge than you have.
Animals which do not have this capability (I'm not well informed on this, but it looks possible that primates don't, e.g. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ascch/Celia's%20pdfs/1998theoryofmin... would be fundamentally limited below the level of very young kids; and perhaps it's not a coincidence that the theory of mind seems to form at about the same age when kids have seem to have an excess of "why" questions about everything.
This is because humans are the only living thing which feels inadequate enough to ask questions. No other creature feels like it lacks knowledge.
And yes, I'll take it a step further: the reason science glorifies questions is because science is human beings systematically mass-hypnotising each other into greater and greater inadequacy.
You ever notice how you never get enough answers in science? Every "answer" you get scientifically only seems to bring about more and more questions? We call it "scientific curiosity" and pretend to marvel at it, but come on, how shallow is that.
What every other living creature (and every newborn human) intrinsically knows is that it knows all it needs to know. And that whenever it needs to know more, it will know it. That's it. There is no scientific process, no philosophical inquiries, no questioning. No doubt. No lack.
And yes, I'll take it a step further: the reason science glorifies questions is because science is human beings systematically mass-hypnotising each other into greater and greater inadequacy.
You ever notice how you never get enough answers in science? Every "answer" you get scientifically only seems to bring about more and more questions? We call it "scientific curiosity" and pretend to marvel at it, but come on, how shallow is that.
What every other living creature (and every newborn human) intrinsically knows is that it knows all it needs to know. And that whenever it needs to know more, it will know it. That's it. There is no scientific process, no philosophical inquiries, no questioning. No doubt. No lack.
To ask questions, you have to 1) understand that others have minds 2) understand that there are things you don't know 3) understand that others might know things you don't 4) understand that you may ask them and they will tell you.
That's actually a lot of advanced cognition, even if it doesn't look that way to us.
That's actually a lot of advanced cognition, even if it doesn't look that way to us.
1) This is universal. Everything understands this. I'd argue adult humans actually have the least developed (or, more accurately, the most diluted) understanding of this.
2) Irrelevant. You know everything you need to know at any given moment.
3) Irrelevant. Nobody knows anything you care about.
4) False. Yes, you may ask, but nobody can transfer their knowledge to you, because their knowledge is of no use to you. Your questions can only be answered with your knowledge. Which makes questioning obsolete (which is where I started).
Its not a lot of advanced cognition. It's a lot of misunderstanding of how life works.
2) Irrelevant. You know everything you need to know at any given moment.
3) Irrelevant. Nobody knows anything you care about.
4) False. Yes, you may ask, but nobody can transfer their knowledge to you, because their knowledge is of no use to you. Your questions can only be answered with your knowledge. Which makes questioning obsolete (which is where I started).
Its not a lot of advanced cognition. It's a lot of misunderstanding of how life works.
Allegedly the famous parrot Alex asked what color he is. But the whole line of research is doubted by a lot of people.
what the eat
lol, the opposite of this actually
> really transformational cultural moments
Prediction: an astonishingly large portion of animal utterances will have to do with reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that humans pour into the atmosphere. You heard it here first.
Prediction: an astonishingly large portion of animal utterances will have to do with reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that humans pour into the atmosphere. You heard it here first.
Aye, turns out the whales are close friends with Koko and agree with everything she, um... said.
Gosh why can’t we leave them alone. This is like impersonating someone’s spouse with a deepfaked voice and then having an intimate conversation with them.
Could this technology be used to communicate with teenagers?
Does the teenager want to be communicated with though?
Tangent time. If you do a cursory search of how smart whales are, you'll get nonsense about how humans are much smarter because the size of the brain isn't relevant, its the ratio of the brain size to the body size. But somehow that argument doesn't apply to squirrels. Or to a 7 foot human vs. a 4.5 foot human. Whales probably aren't as smart as humans, but its due to the environmental pressures selecting for intelligence, not raw capability. Whales have the capability to far outstrip humans in intelligence (if you accept that neuron count and neuron connections are the raw inputs). Lets get some whale engineers working on the hard problems please.