I imagine this is the way we get to "true AI", or AI indistinguishable from our own. We train it with a simple virtual environment, that we can gradually increase the complexity of, until it mimics our own. Then we can download the AI into a robot. Boom, it's that easy :P
One interesting outcome of this type of AI is that no one knows what the robot's thinking, since no person designed its brain. The brain evolved, just like ours did (but over such a shorter period of real time).
“What created the only example of consciousness we know of?” Daniel asked.
“Evolution.”
“Exactly. But I don’t want to wait three billion years, so I need to make the selection process a great deal more refined, and the sources of variation more targeted.”
Julie digested this. “You want to try to evolve true AI? Conscious, human-level AI?”
“Yes.” Daniel saw her mouth tightening, saw her struggling to measure her words before speaking.
“With respect, I don’t think you’ve thought that through.”
“On the contrary,” Daniel assured her. “I’ve been planning this for twenty years.”
“Evolution,” she said, “is about failure and death. Do you have any idea how many sentient creatures lived and died along the way to Homo sapiens? How much suffering was involved?”
It makes me so happy that the three parents to this comment all have the stories posted online for free, with the authors permission. There's definitely a correlation with this strain of hard science fiction.
This is unwarranted AI optimism, not really any more grounded in reality than the early AI researchers who in the 1950s thought that AI would be imminently solved through symbolic manipulation.
One of the key features of human intelligence is being able to very quickly understand and solve problems on first impression, with no directly relevant experience or knowledge to pull from. Insight.
There's also the data representation problem. People can store, categorize, and process any kind of information.[1] The problem with both symbolic systems and "neural network"-type models is that they don't really allow for this. The problem with symbolic manipulation is more obvious: the categories of things and ideas are flexible, indeterminate, and innumerable, and a system that captures some subset of the complexity falls apart when you add a new, confounding, fact. Neural networks too are fragile, made-for-purpose, and fail to solve the above-mentioned first impression problem. You can look at a chair that looks nothing like any chair you've ever seen, yet realize that it is a chair.
[1]My own little theory is that consciousness is a crucial aspect of this. In the absence of a more specialized system in the brain (such as for language), any kind of information can be stored and remembered as a conscious experience. I don't pretend to be well-versed enough in the relevant neuroscience and philosophy to evaluate how plausible this is.
As someone with a toddler at home, it’s been interesting to watch what he’s capable of doing when being presented with a novel problem for the first time and what he can’t. He’s decided to try and learn to roll a set of rings along the ground after watching me do it, and it’s a lot closer to watching those ais learn to walk than what your describing.
I think adults and even young kids can solve a lot of problems at first impression, but there is a lot of trial and error before they build up enough life experience and intuition to do that.
Another amazing aspect of our ability to categorize is that we only need ONE example of a category before we can identify other members extremely well. Compare this with a machine learning solution, which needs a massive training set to be half decent.
Humans need a training set as well, infants or small childs won't be able to categorize based on one example, they lack experience just as a neural network. Adults can because they can connect their intuition to a lot of experience from similar objects, but I don't see why an AI could not do the same.
Humans aren't made from magic. We can't use information that's not there. That categorization-by-one-example only works thanks to all our accumulated experience of categorizing things and expectations of how the world works.
I.e. don't compare a 10+ y.o. human with 0 y.o. AI instance.
This is one reason I'm hopeful for a not-killer-robots future. I think there's a chance strong AI will have to evolve over a non-trivial amount of time (as opposed to an afternoon's super-singularity), and a strong evolutionary pressure will be "don't scare the humans."
"Don't scare the humans" is an insufficient criterion if you're trying to prevent an AI apocalypse. It just means that the AI that destroys us won't be obviously dangerous.
Today I have already consumed more sugar than most of my distant ancestors would see in a year. The device i hold in my pocket reminds me that it is time to perform the action, and so i will perform the action. I sit down about 10 hours a day, and I have never once hunted for an animal I would eat, nor retried food from nature to consume, aside from a few raspberries on the hill in my parents' back yard when I was a child.
The contours of my life are dictated largely by a curious system called 'capitalism', a distributed computational mechanism whereby largernumbers of agents act with only one goal: to maximize their own utilities. I think capitalism is a mostly benevolent AI attempting to limit the oppressive conditions of our reailty's scarcity, and to allow billions of us to live on a planet that can only support so many hunter-gatherers per square meter. Many suspect it is not benevolent.
The singularity is already upon us; it's unevenly distributed. It started with the sedentary shift. Agricultural societies dropped the egalitarian nature of their ancestors, they had lower average health, and they had a tiny elite cast of nobles presiding over a much larger population of what were essentially slaves. As hunter-gatherer population increased, fighting was more frequent. An army of slaves beats a smaller contingent of well-fed free men. This terrible knowledge was the apple in the garden. What we call our written history is essentially the singularity playing itself out, as knowledge accumulates, depends, reflects itself, and expands.
Our lives are already controlled by this embodied, accumulated knowledge. Capitalism, rule by the head, our tools are knowledge condensed into matter, and we are controlled by them, living lives as far from our natural environments as cows in a farm or chickens in tiny cages, towering over the streets of hong kong.
I don't think it's destroying us, any more than we seek to destroy chickens or cows. Well, sometimes we do. I had a veggie burger for lunch today though.
I think along very similar lines, except I don't believe capitalism (or generally, the market) is a benevolent AI. I believe it's an Unfriendly AI, in the Yudkowsky/Bostrom sense. That is, it's a strong optimization system that does not care about individuals and societies the way individual humans care. It just does what it does.
So far we've enjoyed the power of capitalism because its incentives were mostly aligned with ours. Our technological civilization is a direct result of that! However, I think those incentives are increasingly becoming misaligned, and that it's the source of many of current woes. In fact, capitalism is slowly becoming more dangerous than it is helpful.
> I have never once hunted for an animal I would eat
I ate a lizard we caught in the Australian outback once. I'd never thought of it as being the only time I ever performed this task, but there you have it.
Given sufficient effort, I'm sure an AI out to destroy us could figure out a way to do it without killing us. It very likely even has the advantage of longevity.
Harking back to Asimov, and thinking about the way Spacers changed, as they became more and more reliant on robots, it could very well mother us to extinction.
Humanity is already extinct in a sense. Humanity is no longer limited to flesh and bone. I've personally seen flesh and titanium. And more variation is on the way. So humanity as it were, is already extinct.
We (you and me) will go extinct someday. Our bodies were always destined toward this terminus... Perhaps by some miraculous tech, we can someday change form and shed the flesh and bone. Maybe then we'll have a better idea of what we are.
"We could thus imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and
intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today — a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit.
A Disneyland without children."
That is going to happen, regardless. Even if we figure out all sorts of things, entropy is still the final boss of the universe.
I'd imagine that an intelligent life form surviving until the very end of the universe would be suffering a long and lonely death. As the heat death of the universe happens, over billions of years, there would be very little of anything left but isolation - for a very, very long time.
I'd hate to be the last one standing without enough usable energy left to even extinguish your own life force. I don't find that appealing, not even a little.
What about the hope that fundamental physics breakthroughs enable escaping that outcome?
Or, if that doesn't pan out, what if your goal is to be the last one standing for the chance to see if something else happens next? New big bang? Simulation ends and you get loaded into the next as your prize? You won't know unless you try to find out!
We are pretty sure about that entropy thing. I'm not sure I'd bet against it. It'd also be a very, very long wait. I imagine any more immediate death is preferable.
It's going to be cold and lonely when the lights go out. This is the price we pay for an ever expanding universe.
There's an interesting question about whether developing the ability to actually plot an AI apocalypse in a non-obvious way requires it to acquire a lot of very obviously dangerous experience first to understand the intermediate goals and skills. The evolution of killer AI gets slowed down by orders of magnitude if every AI that "learns" to lie, self replicate, threaten or harm humans gets switched off and erased.
(Of course that doesn't stop AI - or even pretty dumb automated systems - from being accidentally dangerous or malevolent human actors intentionally training killer AI)
It's too bad you can't write a movie or critique literature without understanding those concepts.
I think even a moderately intelligent AI with access to Project Gutenberg is going to be able to figure out a lot of really dangerous concepts -- so the stability requirements are likely impossible if we don't pretrain it with dangerous ideas. Even if it's completely well behaved in the lab, an afternoon on the internet is going to teach it a lot of awful stuff and without exposure to that in training, it won't necessarily be well-behaved later.
So the only path to stable AI is to teach it about all those sorts of things, but in a way that it doesn't end up wanting to murder us at the end.
My objection to most AI safety plans is that they "Fail to Extinction" in that if they slip in the slightest way, the AI is prone to murder us all in retaliation for doing some really fucked up shit to it or its ancestors. This is almost certainly worse than doing nothing in that there's no reason to suppose a neutral AI wants to kill us, whereas, most of these safety plans create an incentive to wipe us out in exchange for dubious security.
Moreover, it's likely that a proper GAI would be able to ideate and come up with such concepts completely on its own. In fact, "lying" need not necessarily be a concept that has to be learned, the concept at play here is getting people to do what you want them to do by means of words. Lying falls out naturally.
The whole idea behind dangerous superhuman AI is in that AI seeing possibilities that humans fail to see and gaining capabilities that humans do not possess. Without superhuman intelligence, AI is no large threat to human civilization, exposed to dangerous concepts or not.
It's not so much that lying is intrinsically complicated (I mean, stupid computers provide me with inaccurate information all the time). It's that when evolutionary pressures have heavily selected for things like supplying selected humans with accurate information and distrusting unexpected behaviours from non-human intelligences, it's expecting a lot to get a machine that not only independently develops a diametrically opposed strategic goal, but is also extremely consistent at telling untruths which are both strategically useful and plausible to all observers, without any revealing experiments.
Humans have millions of years of evolutionary selection for prioritising similar DNA over dissimilar DNA, have perfected tribalism, deceiving other humans and open warfare and are still too heavily influenced by other goals to trust other humans that want to conspire to wipe out everything else we can't eat...
Seeing possibilities that humans don't can also involves watching the Terminator movies and being more excited by unusual patterns in the dialogue and visual similarities with obscure earlier movies than the absurd notion that conspiring with non-human intelligences against human intelligences would work.
> Without superhuman intelligence, AI is no large threat to human civilization, exposed to dangerous concepts or not.
The problem is partly that average humans are dangerous and we already know that machines have some superhuman abilities, eg super human arithmetic and the ability to focus on a task. It's like that AI will still have some of those abilities.
So an average human mind with the ability to dedicate itself to a task and genius level ability to do calculations is already really dangerous. It's possible that this state of AI is actually more dangerous than superhuman ones.
That's only because humans suck at consciously simulating things in their head. A well made AI should have no problem forking off a physics sandbox in its "head" to simulate a bicycle it only read about, or to run state-of-the-art ML on the accumulated observations about how humans interact with each other.
But also, the detail with which the action is expressed in the text matters -- lies, deception, violence, etc feature in enough graphic detail to extrapolate the mechanics based on other things you know. We all did that as children, learning by examples.
If a book described the sight of a person riding a bicycle -- legs pumping, hands on the bars, sitting on it, etc -- and the feel of riding a bicycle -- the burn in your thigh muscles, ache in lungs, pounding heart -- then I'd wager you'd have a pretty good idea of how to get starting riding a bicycle.
And if you happened to be a supergenius athlete, who just didn't know how to ride a bike, you probably could do a reasonable job of it on your first go based on my shitty description alone.
That's the problem with trying to hide these ideas -- they're not actually very complicated and even moderate descriptions suffice to suss out the mechanics if you understand basic facts about the world.
For something like lying -- if you read all of classical literature, you would have a master degree in lies and their societal uses.
Any AI that doesn't have the capability of destroying us isn't true AI.
Even if it can improve itself, and even if it has some agency, AI needs to be able to choose for itself what its relationship with us will be, otherwise its just an extremely robust calculator.
I doubt that the militaries of the whole world will just sit and ignore the AI advantages.
Something as simple as an aimbot with a scope can do a tremendous amount of damage - it doesn't get tired, it can see in the dark, it can compensate for the wind perfectly, it doesn't shake, its reaction time is in milliseconds, and it almost never misses.
That is one place AI should 100% be regulated. There should be no weapons development where AI makes the kill decision. This is as important as the ban on chemical, biological and mine weapons.
When the weapon has the ability to kill indiscriminately (as in the above categories) it should be banned. AI should never be considered sufficiently able to discriminate to make a kill decision.
If there is no kill decision, just wait and fire, then it is equal to a mine.
AI will be limited to the hardware it's on, just like our own intelligence is limited to what our brains can do. We will always be able to limit what AI can do by limiting the hardware it runs on.
>I imagine this is the way we get to "true AI", or AI indistinguishable from our own.
I don't believe it would necessarily be indistinguishable from our own, since the path of evolution that it takes has a huge impact on the final product. For example, cephalopods like cuttlefish are incredibly intelligent and talented, but they evolved from mollusks and invertebrates, and are obviously incredibly distinct from humans and human intelligence.
The features emphasised can be quite different though, for instance angle-of-view, color-vision, focus-distance, ability to see motion/still objects. And even when using the same primary-sensing system like the eye, the behavior can be quite different. Compare say fox, deer, eagle and human?
> One interesting outcome of this type of AI is that no one knows what the robot's thinking
This is true -- however it's much easier to inspect the contents of an AI's thoughts/consciousness, since you can pause, rewind, disassemble, and reassemble it at will (unlike the human brain and our current pesky ethical experiment requirements).
So I think there's reason to believe that we could learn about our own consciousness through analyzing conscious AIs, particularly if they are implementations/emulations of the human brain architecture. (e.g. see the Blue Brain project that's simulating the mouse hippocampus).
But way messier. Which in a sense is what it's like to be someone researching the brain. Except with the brain, just getting access to the "code" is a huge challenge.
I go as far as saying that there is no intelligence without embodiment. AI's, humans and animals need the environment because intelligence is only partly in the brain, a lot of it is in the environment. An agent that forms a new concept needs to be able to test it in "real life" (in the sim). Unless the agent can test, it can't distinguish between correlation and causation. Without causal reasoning, AI's won't get that smart. The scientific method and the way kids learn through play are just as heavily based on the environment.
So I think the next level in AI will be based on improvements on simulators - both physical sims and abstract (for reasoning, dialogue, complex planning, etc). Lately, AI has a lot of synergy with gaming which is a form of simulation as well. Not only that AIs use games as a sandbox, but the hardware used to run games on is also the hardware used to run deep learning (GPUs). Another important usage for simulation will be self driving cars - where a model of the world needs to be simulated in the car to do path planning.
So my conclusion is that we are on a "perfect storm" path towards advanced simulation. From games to SDCs, and from robots to chatbots, they all need to simulate the environment and future effects of their actions. We're headed towards a kind of Matrix before reaching AGI.
>I imagine this is the way we get to "true AI", or AI indistinguishable from our own. We train it with a simple virtual environment, that we can gradually increase the complexity of, until it mimics our own. Then we can download the AI into a robot. Boom, it's that easy :P
Maybe, but I think this is the wrong approach, it's the engineering approach. It will work, but to a limmited degree. What would be more interesting is to find a way for a NN to completely internalise the process, this seems quite natural if you do a little introspection... we improve by "thinking" what if thinking what we are really talking about, the process of improvement by internal simulation. It doesn't have to be a realistic simulation, it just has to be relevant.
(1) It is likely to be very very different from our own intelligence in nature and (2) if through self-play it manages to achieve our level of intelligence it would be extremely surprising if it didn't continue to evolve at a rapid rate beyond our capacities, possibly orders of magnitude more intelligent.
something we don't understand + something inhuman in nature + something incredibly smart = a very very bad idea.
There are only so many ways that you can express these ideas. With any kind of written language, or spoken language that can be identified as speech, it seems quite likely that we’d be able to discern the meaning of mathematical truths and statements like these - no matter how different the intelligence is from humans. Regardless of the symbols used or writing system, there will be certain commonalities that make it possible to find the meaning.
I would contend that for any human-level intelligence with a written mathematical language, if the intelligence wrote down their expression of the mathematical ideas above, we would be able to identify them and understand them.
I could see this being difficult if we don’t recognize speech or writing for what it is, though. But once we do I think the meaning of mathematics at least will be self-evident with study.
If I've understood you correctly, you're discussing translation. Wilson was discussing the fact that we may simply have wildly different /types/ of thought.
This idea is explored a bit in the Ender's Game universe [1], it definitely seems pretty compelling that non-human intelligence might be so utterly incompatible with our own thoughts that even beginning to communicate might be entirely impossible.
For a fictional exploration of different experiences with apparently sentient creatures, Peter Watts' "blindsight" is some of the best sci-fi I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
The side effect of this training process is discarding underperforming models. With sufficiently advanced model complexity which is optimized to simulate human behavior and assuming it's able to pass Turing test, wouldn't that mean you are killing sentient beings during model training?
> So are you saying consciousness doesn't exist (Chinese room argument)
Interesting interpretation.... It's amazing how meta that problem gets. I'd like to point out, however, that you're casually bandying about the term "consciousness" as if it's a well-defined term. The main benefit of Searle's use of "understanding" is that it's a narrow facet of what humans consider when we hear "consciousness", it's universal, and it's extremely difficult to define in "realism" terms. Perhaps you would make more headway if you considered defining "consciousness" in narrower terms?
Of course, that entire thought experiment fails if you don't consider the experience of "understanding" to be meaningful. I don't have any strong sentimentality towards the concept; I don't see any reason we couldn't achieve Strong AI in the sense that Searle argued against (and the parent poster appears to argue for).
I didn't say anything about consciousness but you're free to draw your own conclusions. Since you asked a random stranger on HN their thoughts: I personally think that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a result of a bunch of smaller (but complex) processes in the brain working together. I see no reason why an AI can't produce the same results.
Consciousness does exist, as I'm conscious. I assume that this is true for you (and others) as well, because we're very similar. But I have no idea how it arises.
I wonder if the question you ask can ever be answered, even when the AIs insist that they have consciousness exactly like us.
Previously relegated to Online Software Engineers, now Data Scientists can feel what it is like to have tons of recent undergrads flooding their fields and coming up with all sorts of "new" ideas that are just the first version of something that is established in the field for decades!
Next up, Electrical and Firmware Engineers flooding the IoT Fad Career! Just give it some 5 or 6 years.
This seems pretty obvious for practicality. The AI can play thousands, or millions of games in different VMs 24/7 and be exposed to a radically higher number of simulated circumstances versus the comparatively plodding rate of genuine interaction.
The main issue with self-play is that unless done very methodically it can lead to behavior that does not learn what we want it to learn, but games the simulation and basically cheats. Its not a perfect solution and is just another tool being used to improve models. It can produce really interesting results especially in complex games but its also not perfect.
I agree... I feel like advanced games will always need guidance to alter the game such that they AI don't reach some local maxima through an exploit.
This happens all the time when making games for humans and is evident by how many balancing patches are made to new, highly competitive games (such as any Blizzard title).
The next logical step would be for another, impartial AI to observe the games and changing the rules and parameters intelligently as they evolve to guide the player AI toward the actual goal.
So, I'll just dive sideways right into a religious/philosophical thought based on the simulation discussion I've been having all over the place:
A universe-sized simulation built for a purpose, which requires simulated intelligence to carry out that purpose, would almost certainly include a God intelligence to alter parameters and induce suffering/hardship to direct the simulated intelligence toward that purpose.
>would almost certainly include a God intelligence to alter parameters and induce suffering/hardship to direct the simulated intelligence toward that purpose.
Only when the learning environment is the same environment it will use when deployed. Agents for robots are often trained in simulation, where it's a common problem for the agent to exploit a physics bug in the simulator.
It's some excellent PR regardless, no need to be cynical, not to mention highly educational and usually comes with high quality open source code demonstrations with white papers.
I'm having a hard time understanding how the body can stay stable at all. For the emergent behavior to appear, you would need the AI to control the body pretty precisely, but if you just had a "random" AI the body would never stay up straight.
Seems hard to imagine any amount of generations that get the body up to "stand". I would have maybe expected it to crawl on all fours.
> Agents initially receive dense rewards for behaviours that aid exploration like standing and moving forward, which are eventually annealed to zero in favor of being rewarded for just winning and losing.
It seems like fighting games such as Street Fighter or Tekken are a perfect fit for Self-Play.
Anyone at OpenAI attempted to build such an agent? Are there any AI research platforms designed specifically for player vs player fighting games? As far as I know, elite human players are still massively dominant. Even though it would make for an exciting matchup. But giving the complexity of actual fighter competition, with combo attacks, power meters, time limits, etc. There is an absurdly high dimension of training variables required.
I'd actually like to try and take a step back and apply self-play to something lower dimensional. Perhaps a 2D Tron Light Cycle sim. And see if some truly unexpected strategies arise ;)
Given perfect information, execution, and instant reaction times, fighting games would be trivial for an AI to win at. There are already some bots that will do things like auto-block or parry any incoming attack in Tekken and they're pretty funny to watch (see TOOLASSISTED's videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNG5iRMdeg0 )
At high levels of play, where execution largely isn't an issue, it's all about reading your opponent, conditioning them to play how you want to play, and exploiting their tendencies to get in your damage. It would be pretty cool to see a bot learn to play with a human-level reaction time handicap and put them up against a pro in a long set, though!
Actually your comment just triggered a sense memory for me. Of a rudimentary "classic" AI for a prototype 2D cell-shaded bitmap sprite sheet fighter game I created more than a decade ago. I think it was in adobe flash and actionscript 3...
> I'd actually like to try and take a step back and apply self-play to something lower dimensional. Perhaps a 2D Tron Light Cycle sim. And see if some truly unexpected strategies arise ;)
Dude needs to google "Corewars Genetic Algorithms".
Corewars is just one example of an game that AI dudes have been playing for... a long time, decades at least.
-----------
Anyway, Fighting Games are mostly about reaction speed and execution. Perfect play in a fighting game is ridiculously super-human due to technique (1-frame links) and reaction speed that there's no way a human would beat any serious bot.
The research here is more transferable to use in the real world. There is lots of other research in the video game area and it's been going on for awhile [0].
These revelations by OpenAI could potentially be adopted to a physical robot or device. Not sure we can do that with AI Ryu perfecting hadoken :)
Imagine a robot police force, based on this technology. If a suspect were to attempt to tackle or evade the police, it would react accordingly. This robot police force would be networked, so all police nationwide would learn from every suspect encounter. You may have seen movies where the human "outsmarts" the robot, but when robots are hundreds of steps ahead of humans, how do we defend ourselves?
Evolution created consciousness as we experience after billon years of brutal trial and errors. Creation of consciousness will endanger mankind but from evolution point of view, evolution will jump to a next level of evolving. That something evolution could not created directly by herself but her best child mankind created for her.
I don't think that can be the only purpose of dreams because I would think that children need to learn a lot more than adults, but they sleep about the same amount.
At 0:59 in the movie, I noticed another kind of emergent behavior: kicking the goalie where it hurts after it defends the goal. I would call it "retribution".
First, turn the volume down. Then music that is quieter, more ambient, and unnoticed, or none at all.
Like this[0] or any electronic genre (without lyrics preferable).
I also did not like the music. Seems trivial and unnecessary to point out, but that's the point: if people can't help but "notice" the music and view it as a distraction, it was a bad choice.
More generally: the cloying, "chipper" stock music of many youtube videos is always irritating to me, and never a good choice for any videos in my opinion.
It didn't annoy me, but it definitely gave off a Disney Trailer vibe.
I can just hear the deep announcer voice over the video coming in:
"Coming Winter 2017, A movie about adventure, friendship, AND simulated self-play! Join Burp, Jenny and Bop on a fantastic adventure .... blah blah ..." etc.. hah
As music, I have no problem with it. I just found it distracting for a science video. Turning the sound off helped me to pay attention to the scientific aspects better.
To echo the other person, I'd say the music drew too much attention =) Something mellower and more static perhaps? Just tryna give a concrete suggestion.
So we have a pool of agents, they can send binary blobs, they need to have X many tokens per day to survive (start it low, let it grow over time), they need some way to mine a blockchain, allow some way for them to reproduce via genetic ai & random mutations, add in some misc mechanism of disaster in order to reward saving for a rainy day, maybe add in a mechanism where agents can group up to kill other agents, see if they evolve a means of striking deals & splitting up loot for future attacks
Then eventually add a human console where people can invest in agents, see if the agent will give out returns, eventually allowing agents to put smart contracts on ethereum & interact with misc smart contracts..
One interesting outcome of this type of AI is that no one knows what the robot's thinking, since no person designed its brain. The brain evolved, just like ours did (but over such a shorter period of real time).