Rendered at 23:48:38 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Peteragain 2 days ago [-]
IMHO translation of anything interesting requires the cultural background for context. To do it with a new language requires the translator to "go native". The mega fauna gets media attention, but they would have more chance of success with one of the many dolphin pods that live up close and personal with humans. For example Shark Bay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Mia
In the 1990s we had field linguists interested, but the tech sucked. It's good to try again, but a lit search might help.
marcus_holmes 21 hours ago [-]
I'm also fascinated by what we'd actually say, beyond "hello".
Humans from different cultures have problems communicating clearly. How would we say anything meaningful to creatures who don't share any part of our worldview?
A whale's world is upside down from our point of view - there's a flat upper limit, but no effective lower limit. They are stuck near the surface in the same way we're stuck near the ground. But they live in a much more 3-dimensional world than we do - it's much easier for them to swim down than it is for us to fly up. That's got to affect their thinking and language in ways we can't know. They will have expressions and terms that are relatable to other whales but incomprehensible to us because we don't have that same shared experience.
I think it's great that we're trying, but I'm expecting a pretty dull conversation at the end, purely because we can't say anything more meaningful in a way that they'd understand, and vice versa.
fragmede 19 hours ago [-]
Life is an adventure, and you can't imagine that an entirely different species wouldn't have some absolutely fascinating stories to tell?
EarthBlues 1 days ago [-]
I don't want to poopoo this research because I think it's really cool. I just want to urge some caution. There are three distinct risk categories with this research that I think should trigger a halt if certain pre-specified conditions are breached.
(1) Animal welfare. The researchers are aware of the animal welfare issues at stake, but a collection of metrics around pod culture, stress, and reproduction should be tracked across experiments to make sure we're not hurting the animals. If thresholds are exceeded across multiple experimebts with this tech, the research should stop.
(2) Acoustic -> semantic gap. There's a green lumber problem with this research. We may be able to predict animal responses in playback tests, but we don't have a way to map that back to semantic meaning. This is probably fine for now, but if we don't have adequate semantic theory or if we have multiple competing semantic theories that all explain the patterns equally well, the we're just manipulating the animals, not communicating with them. (eg, It's not even really clear to me that "whale concepts" and "human concepts" would be commensurable.)
(3) Bad incentives. Between media sensationalism, the normal problems and biases that come with funding science today, and potentially terrible usages of "whale tech" (eg, clearing out shipping lanes, warfare), it seems to me there are some extra ethical considerations with this research such that there may be a point where the outcome space is overwhelmingly negative. It would be nice if mechanisms existed such that research could be stopped if these bad incentives activate.
simianwords 1 days ago [-]
OT but: I'm giggling thinking of these researches caring about animal welfare for their study and then eating meat for dinner
Balooga 20 hours ago [-]
This is called a dichotomy. People are able to hold two opposing views in their heads without too much trouble.
For example; I hate to think of cows being tortured or otherwise abused. I do like a good hamburger.
simianwords 18 hours ago [-]
that's not a coherent view, i'm sorry.
K0balt 14 hours ago [-]
It’s also not a coherent view to think that the welfare of the planet is more important than one single human life and then to go on living in the modern way. We live in a thick soup of duplicitous thinking. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that.
simianwords 13 hours ago [-]
No one realistically thinks that though so I’m not sure who you are attacking
zackmorris 9 hours ago [-]
I'm reminded of Star Trek II, III, IV and V, as well as Contact. The frontier is the illogical.
htruane 15 hours ago [-]
They said as much. Two opposing views do not form one coherent view. You agree on that.
donkey_brains 1 days ago [-]
All animals as equal, but some are more equal than others, eh?
pjmlp 9 hours ago [-]
Plants have feelings as well.
dTal 5 hours ago [-]
Why inject such disingenuous chaff into the discussion?
Two options:
- You genuinely believe that all living organisms have equal moral weight. You are either a Jainist who sweeps the floor in front of your feet to avoid treading on an insect, or else a callous murderer who would dispatch an annoying human as easily as an annoying fly.
- You are a sane person who does not in fact believe that, and this comment was some sort of bad faith "gotcha".
pjmlp 5 hours ago [-]
Gotcha, and yes I do believe they feel being killed in some form, however we are a species of selective morals depending on the situation at hand.
marcus_holmes 20 hours ago [-]
So it's OK to talk to Orcas because they eat meat too?
wellthisisgreat 1 days ago [-]
One does not exclude the other
There is a spectrum to caring and also to meat eating habits.
We are animals too
goatlover 1 days ago [-]
Regarding #2, reminds me of Wittgenstein's claim that, "If a lion could speak, we couldn't understand him", because for Wittgenstein meaning is use, and lions would have different use for words than we do since there is no shared culture or biology. It would likely be even more incommensurable for sea creatures who don't share dry land with us.
dTal 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder what Wittgenstein would have to say about Alex the African Grey.
EarthBlues 1 days ago [-]
I have some problems with Wittgenstein's philosophy when applied to human rationality (I think cross-game invariant structures do exist) but here I think it's an apt observation and you could very well be right. Nice!
simianwords 1 days ago [-]
there's this notion that things are so arbitrary and beings are so different that one can't understand eachother. I find this fascinatingly wrong.
No, we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid. We can't understand lions also because we haven't researched them enough.
My bet: once "beings" cross an IQ threshold, they can start to understand each other.
EarthBlues 1 days ago [-]
You might be right. I dont think its certain though. Humans seem to be able to communicate across language gaps in ways we can't with animals. Things really could be that different. For example, all human languages that we know about have some idea of a who doing something to a whom, even if they express it in drastically different syntax. For all we know (I'm just making this up, don't take it too seriously), whales might experience the world as a stream of objects. Maybe that's perfectly fine for whale existence. But we can't even really conceptualize that! And how would we know, anyway?
pixl97 1 days ago [-]
Eh, if I were a mad scientists with a unaligned AI and a wetlab I'd keep jamming more and more language related genes in animals to see if anything interesting happens. I know there's been some work around the NOVA1 gene that is showing interesting results.
K0balt 14 hours ago [-]
Flowers for Algernon IRL? Planet of the apes? What part of this did they miss? (OTOH everyone wants a talking puppy?)
SideburnsOfDoom 10 hours ago [-]
> we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid.
Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.
> we haven't researched them enough.
I don't think you or I know much about the current state of Lion research. This statement is meaningless confabulation.
simianwords 6 hours ago [-]
> Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.
This has no bearing to what I said. We can't understand lions because they are dumb. Sure they are smart enough to hunt in a pack.
My point was that lions communicate with each other using crude ways. They are not secretly intelligent or something
tednoob 2 days ago [-]
If they are intelligent and curious, imagine if they let us come tell them tales of the world, works of fiction, musings of space, what if they swim around just letting us tell them of all the fascinating things we find out. Humanity may travel the cosmos, only to come home to tell our whale friends everything we learned. I wonder if there will be a whale someday with the dream of going to space.
acidhousemcnab 2 days ago [-]
They will say "no no, there's no problems we're having with pollution, and we think AI Godtech supremacy is a wonderful idea, and you should definitely pour all of humanities resources into going into space, and liquidate anyone who defies you".
sebastianconcpt 1 days ago [-]
The adventures they must be having and things they observed would feel unreal to us.
And of course I can't wait to have the cat translator. That's a big startup idea BTW, just a bit too early still.
Derberino 2 days ago [-]
Well I hope not, the might finally transform to a petunia plant, which will end bad as we all know
Bluestein 2 days ago [-]
There's some sort of almost obligatory Star Trek reference lurking here :)
elgertam 1 days ago [-]
"The sounds, but not the language. We'd be responding in gibberish."
Granted those were humpbacks (whales, not people).
sehugg 1 days ago [-]
It'd be funny if Kirk just sent the gibberish and it worked and they could have skipped the time travel
Bluestein 1 days ago [-]
"Gibberish ... gibberish is our business!" - said Kirk vehemently ...
TeMPOraL 1 days ago [-]
That wasn't until the late 24th century, after they adopted technobabble and then held on to it while letting go of the consultants keeping it coherent and plausible. In Kirk's time, they just put "Space" in front of everything. "Space madness", "Space baby", ...
luxcem 1 days ago [-]
If they are intelligent they should fear and avoid humans as we killed so many of them and other species in the oceans.
nkoren 1 days ago [-]
I suspect they're more intelligent than that. By, like, a lot.
When I was a teenager, I took a rowboat out onto what was then called Scammon's Lagoon, in Baja California, where the Grey whales raise their young. A mother whale -- several times the size of our boat -- and her calf approached. The calf was curious but cautious, so the mother nudged it into approaching the boat, close enough that we could reach over and rub its nose, which everyone on the boat did in turns.
What did the whales get out of this? Certainly nothing tangible -- nobody was feeding them or anything like that. But if you've ever rubbed a wild baby whale's nose while looking at it in the eyes -- and experienced the emotional connection which results -- then you will be forever incapable of hostility, apathy, or utilitarian thinking about whales.
I'm certain the mother whale knew what she was doing. She was recruiting us to her side. MUCH more effective, in the long term, than merely running away.
johnkozak 1 days ago [-]
How does a whale read a group of humans in a boat? A normal-shaped body underneath and a wild mess of heads and flappy things above? We are the shoggoths...
K0balt 14 hours ago [-]
Had a similar but less intimate experience with orcas when I was working as an engineer on a fishing tender.
EvanAnderson 17 hours ago [-]
I don't have a whale moment, but my manatee moment gave me feelings that are probably similar to yours re: being incapable of feeling anything but respect and awe for the aquatic mammals we share the planet with.
In the late 80s my father took me snorkeling at the Crystal River Manatee Sanctuary[0]. We rowed our boat out into the river and anchored. I jumped in and immediately spotted an adult manatee and a calf. I've always assumed it was a mother and her calf.
Judging distance under water is difficult, but I'd put them at least 40 feet away in water that might have been 12 feet deep.
The mother put herself between me and the calf surprisingly quickly. Knowing the rules I didn't approach them. I just floated there watching.
After a few moments the calf poked its head around its mother and looked at me. It felt just like a curious child peeking from behind a parent's legs. I stayed still and just watched them (thankful my father made me wear the yellow Navy surplus horseshoe collar BC that had just enough air in it to keep me afloat without the need to tread water).
My father was still getting his SCUBA gear together and hadn't jumped in yet. I think I stuck my head up and told him they were there-- I can't remember for sure-- but I know he stayed in the boat for awhile leaving me alone with the two manatees.
As I watched over the next couple of minutes both mother and calf went up for air and moved closer to me. It seemed like they were grazing along the bottom in the plants. I didn't see them eat any of the plants, but it seemed like they were nosing around in them. I definitely got the "sea cow" comparison.
The mother got close enough for me to see ugly gashes in her back from being stuck by boat motors. They weren't bloody or raw-looking, but they did look deep and painful to have acquired. Her calf's back was smooth and a lighter color.
As they proceeded past me the calf turned, swam over its mother, and approached me. I was shocked at how fast it could reorient itself and move. Again, having been told the rules, I kept my hands close to my body and didn't move. The calf bumped into my legs and rubbed against my back as it swam past. It descended and circled back around under me and rejoined its mother. They continued swimming away from me, into the murkier deeper water and down into the sanctuary where we weren't permitted to follow.
The whole thing might have lasted 5 minutes, but it really stuck with me. The memory is surely tarnished and altered, having been recalled so many times, but I definitely got bumped by a curious manatee calf whose mother was wary but didn't flee.
I couldn't visit the monument-- I hadn't learned to SCUBA dive yet. My father, who was an underwater photography enthusiast, took photos of it. The next year we transferred the photos and 8mm movie footage he shot onto VHS for me to show to my 6th grade class. I can remember him reading the inscription for the tape in a very somber voice.
> "Life must become more than the wants and needs of humans. We are not on this earth alone. If the manatee goes into extinction because the needs of humans became more important then we will have taken another step backward toward our own demise. Extinction is forever and for all." - Dr. Harvey Barnett
I'd love to find that VHS. His picture is somewhere in the mess of slides I need to eventually scan.
I'd also love to back and swim with the manatees again. Apparently their populations are doing better, though they're still at risk.
busssard 1 days ago [-]
... this is sadly not true.
I know the story of a farmer whose wife trained one of their pigs to be living inside the house like a dog. part of everyday activity.
But the farmer still killed the pig at the end of the season, because it was the thing to do.
So i think the japanese might not have the same cultural appreciation for the emotional connection with "food"
its a wall many vegan and animal activists are struggling often
nkoren 15 hours ago [-]
Idealistically, I really wish I could disagree with you.
Living in this reality, unfortunately I cannot.
So I should restate the whale story: that's the effect it had on me, and I still strongly suspect that this was intentional on the whale's part. But YMMV.
dudefeliciano 1 days ago [-]
i am trying hard and failing to understand how your comment relates to the one you are replying to
black_rabbit_ 1 days ago [-]
This sentence:
> But if you've ever rubbed a wild baby whale's nose while looking at it in the eyes -- and experienced the emotional connection which results -- then you will be forever incapable of hostility, apathy, or utilitarian thinking about whales.
Comment you're replying to is saying that this is optimistic; most people are capable of doublethink, and will quite happily "love" one individual of a species while being completely indifferent to the death and suffering of the rest of that species. I've observed the same phenomenon.
archonis 11 hours ago [-]
>> and will quite happily "love" one individual of a species while being completely indifferent to the death and suffering of the rest of that species.
Similar to how a significant subset of the human population responds to other humans.
dudefeliciano 15 hours ago [-]
In that comment it was the farmers wife who trained the pig to live in the house like a dog, and then the farmer himself who killed the pig.
I do agree that doublethink is widespread (just look at how we treat other humans, no need to go across species) but I think these are choices that happen on a personal level and can hardly be generalized. I know people who stopped eating octopus after seeing My Octopus Teacher, and I've seen Chinese restaurants serving dog meat. We live in a world full of contraddictions.
busssard 8 hours ago [-]
The farmer still lived together with the pig, engaged with it etc.
I dont know the exactl level of engagement, but i doubt that he simply never saw the pig as a pet.
It was just so engrained that its a agricultural product at the end of the season, and that it was in its nature to be slaughtered that he didnt even question it.
I was not saying it isnt possible to be changed by such an experience, just that other drivers might override that.
There is Vegan Hunters that kill deer for the stability of the ecosystem as an exotic example.
embedding-shape 1 days ago [-]
So are we (supposedly), yet we collaborate and hang out with other people.
suddenlybananas 2 days ago [-]
That is not going to happen. I don't know how people entertain these absurd ideas about animal communication.
dannyw 2 days ago [-]
Crows can remember a human face for 17 years, and pass this knowledge through their murder (group).
We know animals communicate with each other, and the trend is we generally discover more and have underestimated what many animal species practice and can do.
Everyone agrees that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis have talked together and lived (and bred) together; what makes inter-species communication (assuming a translator or device) impossible?
No, I don’t think “universal translators” are outside the domain of science fiction; but I think us building a device that enables two-way communication between one species and us, is probably more likely than not.
I pissed off a crow once, not a good idea. It got its revenge and it was crazy how its murder group would destroy my property. Luckily they have moved on but I make friends with them now and understand them much better.
Bluestein 2 days ago [-]
There's a classic "This American Life" episode along those lines. Poor sap ended up wearing a fake beard and glasses on the back of his head just be be able to leave the house. Bonkers.-
rightbyte 1 days ago [-]
I miss the specifics of what you did to deserve your fate in the story :)
suddenlybananas 2 days ago [-]
I think you are very naïve about how complicated language is. I'm not saying animals lack any intelligence whatsoever, but I don't see how remembering faces means you'll be able to talk. The crows could just have acted hostile to the masked people in front of each other. Communicating is not the same thing as language which is vastly more expressive than any non-human animal is capable of.
Not everyone agrees that Neanderthals possessed language like us either, although evidently they are much, much closer evolutionarily to us than crows or whales, and it is vastly more plausible that they talked. Having Neanderthal DNA doesn't mean that we talked with them though, it needn't have been even consensual, unfortunately.
reverius42 2 days ago [-]
Lots of animals communicate with each other, I think we agree. If we can automatically translate their communicative utterances into English (or any other utterances that we understand), in general, that would be remarkable, and useful! Who cares whether those utterances qualify as "language".
suddenlybananas 2 days ago [-]
My whole point is what we could communicate would be profoundly limited. It's like how we can communicate with dogs to a certain extent, but we're not telling them bedtime stories. The comment I responded to originally is fantasising an absurd degree of complexity in communication which is profoundly unrealistic.
wrsh07 1 days ago [-]
Language and written language are themselves technologies that change what individuals can do (and thus impact their societies)
> Younger signers had developed a richer vocabulary for mental states—concepts like believe, remember, forget, understand. They were much better than the original older signers at tasks requiring them to reason about what another person thinks or knows. Later, as the older signers picked up those mental-state terms from younger people, some of them improved on the same tests. Senghas describes it as language giving them new insight into other people’s thinking and motivations.
I see several likely stories:
* Much animal communication is practical, descriptive of the present (nothing abstract, or very few abstract concepts)
* If a species could expand its communication, it would give it more powerful tools and allow for more meaningful conversation with humans
* If such a thing is possible, it will be extremely disruptive to that species
I think if you could communicate about abstract ideas with your dog, you could exchange bedtime stories. However, I don't think such a thing is possible today, and it's not clear what species (if any, besides humans) will, in fact, be able to learn such things
suddenlybananas 1 days ago [-]
Nicaraguan sign language is evidence for an innate language capacity, not that it is an invented technology and certainly not evidence for Sapir Whorf.
wrsh07 1 days ago [-]
Evidence for vs compatible with are different things, and agreed!
I don't think it's particularly controversial to say "written language is a meaningful technology advancement for a civilization", though!
TeMPOraL 1 days ago [-]
Communication is a two-way street, with both parties negotiating and evolving some "communication protocol" over time. We won't know how far we'll be able to go until we're able to try.
TheOtherHobbes 1 days ago [-]
There are people doing experiments with pet buttons - one-sound samplers that play a voice recording when the pet paws the button.
They're pretty damn interesting. Cats sometimes think hard about their responses. And they use metaphors. And express emotions.
There's always the suspicion this is a fake marketing exercise. But if it is, it's a very ornate and extended one.
I have no idea how we're supposed to communicate with aliens if we can't communicate with other mammals.
"They're really stupid and can't do calculus or invent FTL travel" isn't much of an excuse.
TeMPOraL 1 days ago [-]
I think we rarely even try.
Except when we do, but it doesn't make for flashy press releases. Pet owners, vets, farmers throughout history - anyone who lives alongside animals, cares for them, and is open to developing an emotional relationship with them, knows animals are more than just small finite state machines made of meat. But it takes time to spot and learn the patterns of behavior, and as I said, it's a two-way street; the animal has to "open up" and learn you as much as you have to learn them.
It is a kind of thing that's difficult to cleanly verify and reproduce, and it's also kinda mundane. The cases that made headlines look like Clever Hans the other commenter mentioned.
I imagine that a better classifier, some general AI system that gets to learn and observe the animals, would be able to tease out the patterns and then translate them to English, and then that would be reproducable and make for flashy headlines.
suddenlybananas 1 days ago [-]
Have you ever heard of Clever Hans?
reverius42 1 days ago [-]
I think we learned the wrong lesson from Clever Hans, which is that animals don't communicate and it's always the human handler doing it.
The real lesson we should have learned is that horses are stupid and we should have been testing a Border Collie.
buellerbueller 1 days ago [-]
Which ideas, specifically, are absurd by your reckoning?
I am not sure what a fictional film has to do with the discussion here.
netsharc 1 days ago [-]
Imagine trying to explain to animals the story behind those images. You'd have to explain human concepts like ego, greed, brutality (the ability to dehumanize others), technological development of weapons, up to nuclear weapons...
And the main comment thinks the whales will have the brains to understand something like space travel or why we desire it?
Then again, you give me an inkling what humans trying to talk to whales will be faced with.
buellerbueller 10 hours ago [-]
>Then again, you give me an inkling what humans trying to talk to whales will be faced with.
Because I think your analogy is piss poor? Sorry to have contradicted you, Omniscient One! Get the fuck off your high horse, you're nothing special and that was downright offensive and absolutely uncalled for.
If a species has the cognitive capacity that would be required for a language akin to ours (or even more complex than it?) then why do you assume that they wouldn't have concepts like ego, greed, brutality? We already know that animals use tools; what is a weapon but a tool for the purpose of brutality?
Your example of teaching an alien all of humanity in 5 minutes, though: it's silly, and I don't think anyone in the debate here (except, you, apparently) expects that we are going to meld minds with whales in that short a time.
suddenlybananas 1 days ago [-]
The entire comment? Do you think it's plausible that we will be able to explain space travel to whales?
famouswaffles 1 days ago [-]
Maybe ? I know you're trying to make a distinction between communication and language which is fair but all signs we have point to there being a distinct possibility that one of our ocean friends, in the whale and/or cetacean class do have language. It's nowhere near as absurd as you're making out.
buellerbueller 1 days ago [-]
I don't speak whale, so it is hard to make a claim. I am sure linguists can estimate the complexity of an animal's utterances with the help of machine learning, using quantitative tools like Zipf's Law, Menzerath's Law, Conditional Shannon Enropy, and Repertoire Size.
Whale and Dolphin "languages" (or substitute "utterances" if the hypothesis is so antithetical to you) score remarkably complexly, close to Human "utterances" (again, if animal language is so offensive a notion) on some of these measures. Dog utterances do not:
Zipf's Law (Data Efficiency)
• Humans: -1.0 slope showing an optimal balance of information and physical effort.
• Whales & Dolphins: -1.0 slope matching the exact mathematical curve of human speech.
• Dogs: No -1.0 slope, heavily skewed toward isolated, repetitive alert spikes.
Menzerath's Law (Physical Pacing)
• Humans: Present; internal sounds get shorter as the total sequence grows longer.
• Whales & Dolphins: Present; highly efficient pacing across multiple species.
• Dogs: Absent; vocalizations lack the structured phrase sequences required for this law.
Shannon Entropy (Predictability)
• Humans: High; complex grammatical dependencies stretch across long sentences.
• Whales & Dolphins: Moderate-High; governed by structural rules and click patterns.
• Dogs: Very Low; individual sounds are isolated events with no grammatical rules.
Repertoire Size (Signal Diversity)
• Humans: Infinite vocabulary built from tens of thousands of words.
• Whales & Dolphins: High diversity with hundreds of whistles and thousands of clicks.
• Dogs: Very small vocal pool limited to roughly 10 distinct sounds.
I'd say, it's difficult to say, but calling the hypothesis of whale language "absurd" sounds like something someone might have said (and still might say, incorrectly) about the concept of evolution by natural selection. I think you are overselling your argument.
kakacik 2 days ago [-]
Very confident statements when know practically nothing substantial in this topic
2 days ago [-]
imnotr0b0t 6 hours ago [-]
How do they check taht they got the meaning right? Getting a whale to react is cool, but that's a pretty big jump to knowing what it's actually saying.
kekqqq 1 days ago [-]
I think understanding the conversation without seeing what the speakers do will be very limiting. The concepts will probably need to be built from the ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincos_language unless we have a large amount of data on which we can train GPT
ricardobayes 14 hours ago [-]
In a few years AI-driven pet-to-human translators are going to be all the rage.
srvo 2 days ago [-]
"He believed that making people fall in love with another species might do more for the ocean than any policy paper ever could."
This got my wheels turning. Charismatic megafauna (like whales) already drive the top of the funnel for ecological awareness. Imagine what the cetacean equivalent of the staples baddie could do.
sm001 2 days ago [-]
Communicating with dolphins is much easier than with cachalots, and we have the tech for it at www.dolphinwhispers.com
I haven’t read the article, but how are they going to do training. The data requires an input along with the outcome and I don’t think this data includes outcomes because it would be near impossible to record and interpret.
hulitu 18 hours ago [-]
> Using A.I. to decode communication of sperm whales
Last time didn't ended well. See Mars Attacks
newfriend 2 days ago [-]
Ocean man, take me by the hand
voidUpdate 2 days ago [-]
AI and machine learning? Wow, we're combining automated computer learning with automated computer learning! Whatever will they think of next?
vdfs 2 days ago [-]
Blockchain and NFT
k7peak 2 days ago [-]
Log all codas to a blockchain (with actual audio) would be cool. I like how this researcher only releases peer reviewed data and doesn't over-promise. Very cool. I think most of knew this was happening but could never prove it like he has.
fr2029 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
yarick314 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
verytrivial 1 days ago [-]
People have been hallucinating meaning in whale song for decades. Why not automate it?
wrsh07 1 days ago [-]
It seems pretty clear that this is a serious scientific endeavor. I think it's fine for you to be skeptical, but it doesn't feel particularly "in the hacker news spirit" to sarcastically write it off like this
verytrivial 1 days ago [-]
It's always a gamble to attempt humour here. Try the veal.
wrsh07 1 days ago [-]
Unfortunately, the guidelines generally prohibit it:
Humans from different cultures have problems communicating clearly. How would we say anything meaningful to creatures who don't share any part of our worldview?
A whale's world is upside down from our point of view - there's a flat upper limit, but no effective lower limit. They are stuck near the surface in the same way we're stuck near the ground. But they live in a much more 3-dimensional world than we do - it's much easier for them to swim down than it is for us to fly up. That's got to affect their thinking and language in ways we can't know. They will have expressions and terms that are relatable to other whales but incomprehensible to us because we don't have that same shared experience.
I think it's great that we're trying, but I'm expecting a pretty dull conversation at the end, purely because we can't say anything more meaningful in a way that they'd understand, and vice versa.
(1) Animal welfare. The researchers are aware of the animal welfare issues at stake, but a collection of metrics around pod culture, stress, and reproduction should be tracked across experiments to make sure we're not hurting the animals. If thresholds are exceeded across multiple experimebts with this tech, the research should stop.
(2) Acoustic -> semantic gap. There's a green lumber problem with this research. We may be able to predict animal responses in playback tests, but we don't have a way to map that back to semantic meaning. This is probably fine for now, but if we don't have adequate semantic theory or if we have multiple competing semantic theories that all explain the patterns equally well, the we're just manipulating the animals, not communicating with them. (eg, It's not even really clear to me that "whale concepts" and "human concepts" would be commensurable.)
(3) Bad incentives. Between media sensationalism, the normal problems and biases that come with funding science today, and potentially terrible usages of "whale tech" (eg, clearing out shipping lanes, warfare), it seems to me there are some extra ethical considerations with this research such that there may be a point where the outcome space is overwhelmingly negative. It would be nice if mechanisms existed such that research could be stopped if these bad incentives activate.
For example; I hate to think of cows being tortured or otherwise abused. I do like a good hamburger.
Two options:
- You genuinely believe that all living organisms have equal moral weight. You are either a Jainist who sweeps the floor in front of your feet to avoid treading on an insect, or else a callous murderer who would dispatch an annoying human as easily as an annoying fly.
- You are a sane person who does not in fact believe that, and this comment was some sort of bad faith "gotcha".
We are animals too
No, we can't understand lions because lions are kinda stupid. We can't understand lions also because we haven't researched them enough.
My bet: once "beings" cross an IQ threshold, they can start to understand each other.
Lions understand each other well enough to hunt as a coordinated pack.
> we haven't researched them enough.
I don't think you or I know much about the current state of Lion research. This statement is meaningless confabulation.
This has no bearing to what I said. We can't understand lions because they are dumb. Sure they are smart enough to hunt in a pack.
My point was that lions communicate with each other using crude ways. They are not secretly intelligent or something
And of course I can't wait to have the cat translator. That's a big startup idea BTW, just a bit too early still.
Granted those were humpbacks (whales, not people).
When I was a teenager, I took a rowboat out onto what was then called Scammon's Lagoon, in Baja California, where the Grey whales raise their young. A mother whale -- several times the size of our boat -- and her calf approached. The calf was curious but cautious, so the mother nudged it into approaching the boat, close enough that we could reach over and rub its nose, which everyone on the boat did in turns.
What did the whales get out of this? Certainly nothing tangible -- nobody was feeding them or anything like that. But if you've ever rubbed a wild baby whale's nose while looking at it in the eyes -- and experienced the emotional connection which results -- then you will be forever incapable of hostility, apathy, or utilitarian thinking about whales.
I'm certain the mother whale knew what she was doing. She was recruiting us to her side. MUCH more effective, in the long term, than merely running away.
In the late 80s my father took me snorkeling at the Crystal River Manatee Sanctuary[0]. We rowed our boat out into the river and anchored. I jumped in and immediately spotted an adult manatee and a calf. I've always assumed it was a mother and her calf.
Judging distance under water is difficult, but I'd put them at least 40 feet away in water that might have been 12 feet deep.
The mother put herself between me and the calf surprisingly quickly. Knowing the rules I didn't approach them. I just floated there watching.
After a few moments the calf poked its head around its mother and looked at me. It felt just like a curious child peeking from behind a parent's legs. I stayed still and just watched them (thankful my father made me wear the yellow Navy surplus horseshoe collar BC that had just enough air in it to keep me afloat without the need to tread water).
My father was still getting his SCUBA gear together and hadn't jumped in yet. I think I stuck my head up and told him they were there-- I can't remember for sure-- but I know he stayed in the boat for awhile leaving me alone with the two manatees.
As I watched over the next couple of minutes both mother and calf went up for air and moved closer to me. It seemed like they were grazing along the bottom in the plants. I didn't see them eat any of the plants, but it seemed like they were nosing around in them. I definitely got the "sea cow" comparison.
The mother got close enough for me to see ugly gashes in her back from being stuck by boat motors. They weren't bloody or raw-looking, but they did look deep and painful to have acquired. Her calf's back was smooth and a lighter color.
As they proceeded past me the calf turned, swam over its mother, and approached me. I was shocked at how fast it could reorient itself and move. Again, having been told the rules, I kept my hands close to my body and didn't move. The calf bumped into my legs and rubbed against my back as it swam past. It descended and circled back around under me and rejoined its mother. They continued swimming away from me, into the murkier deeper water and down into the sanctuary where we weren't permitted to follow.
The whole thing might have lasted 5 minutes, but it really stuck with me. The memory is surely tarnished and altered, having been recalled so many times, but I definitely got bumped by a curious manatee calf whose mother was wary but didn't flee.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_River_National_Wildlif...
There's a monument located near the outlet of a spring on the river bottom. A photo of the monument: https://www.ardeaprints.com/manatee-monument-king-spring-182...
I couldn't visit the monument-- I hadn't learned to SCUBA dive yet. My father, who was an underwater photography enthusiast, took photos of it. The next year we transferred the photos and 8mm movie footage he shot onto VHS for me to show to my 6th grade class. I can remember him reading the inscription for the tape in a very somber voice.
> "Life must become more than the wants and needs of humans. We are not on this earth alone. If the manatee goes into extinction because the needs of humans became more important then we will have taken another step backward toward our own demise. Extinction is forever and for all." - Dr. Harvey Barnett
I'd love to find that VHS. His picture is somewhere in the mess of slides I need to eventually scan.
I'd also love to back and swim with the manatees again. Apparently their populations are doing better, though they're still at risk.
I know the story of a farmer whose wife trained one of their pigs to be living inside the house like a dog. part of everyday activity. But the farmer still killed the pig at the end of the season, because it was the thing to do.
So i think the japanese might not have the same cultural appreciation for the emotional connection with "food"
its a wall many vegan and animal activists are struggling often
Living in this reality, unfortunately I cannot.
So I should restate the whale story: that's the effect it had on me, and I still strongly suspect that this was intentional on the whale's part. But YMMV.
> But if you've ever rubbed a wild baby whale's nose while looking at it in the eyes -- and experienced the emotional connection which results -- then you will be forever incapable of hostility, apathy, or utilitarian thinking about whales.
Comment you're replying to is saying that this is optimistic; most people are capable of doublethink, and will quite happily "love" one individual of a species while being completely indifferent to the death and suffering of the rest of that species. I've observed the same phenomenon.
Similar to how a significant subset of the human population responds to other humans.
I do agree that doublethink is widespread (just look at how we treat other humans, no need to go across species) but I think these are choices that happen on a personal level and can hardly be generalized. I know people who stopped eating octopus after seeing My Octopus Teacher, and I've seen Chinese restaurants serving dog meat. We live in a world full of contraddictions.
I was not saying it isnt possible to be changed by such an experience, just that other drivers might override that. There is Vegan Hunters that kill deer for the stability of the ecosystem as an exotic example.
We know animals communicate with each other, and the trend is we generally discover more and have underestimated what many animal species practice and can do.
Everyone agrees that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis have talked together and lived (and bred) together; what makes inter-species communication (assuming a translator or device) impossible?
No, I don’t think “universal translators” are outside the domain of science fiction; but I think us building a device that enables two-way communication between one species and us, is probably more likely than not.
[1]: https://urban.uw.edu/news/crows-hold-grudges-against-individ...
Not everyone agrees that Neanderthals possessed language like us either, although evidently they are much, much closer evolutionarily to us than crows or whales, and it is vastly more plausible that they talked. Having Neanderthal DNA doesn't mean that we talked with them though, it needn't have been even consensual, unfortunately.
There is a well-known story about this discussed in Radiolab [2010] https://radiolab.org/podcast/91725-words/transcript
Here's ChatGPT summarizing one section:
> Younger signers had developed a richer vocabulary for mental states—concepts like believe, remember, forget, understand. They were much better than the original older signers at tasks requiring them to reason about what another person thinks or knows. Later, as the older signers picked up those mental-state terms from younger people, some of them improved on the same tests. Senghas describes it as language giving them new insight into other people’s thinking and motivations.
I see several likely stories:
* Much animal communication is practical, descriptive of the present (nothing abstract, or very few abstract concepts)
* If a species could expand its communication, it would give it more powerful tools and allow for more meaningful conversation with humans
* If such a thing is possible, it will be extremely disruptive to that species
I think if you could communicate about abstract ideas with your dog, you could exchange bedtime stories. However, I don't think such a thing is possible today, and it's not clear what species (if any, besides humans) will, in fact, be able to learn such things
I don't think it's particularly controversial to say "written language is a meaningful technology advancement for a civilization", though!
They're pretty damn interesting. Cats sometimes think hard about their responses. And they use metaphors. And express emotions.
There's always the suspicion this is a fake marketing exercise. But if it is, it's a very ornate and extended one.
I have no idea how we're supposed to communicate with aliens if we can't communicate with other mammals.
"They're really stupid and can't do calculus or invent FTL travel" isn't much of an excuse.
Except when we do, but it doesn't make for flashy press releases. Pet owners, vets, farmers throughout history - anyone who lives alongside animals, cares for them, and is open to developing an emotional relationship with them, knows animals are more than just small finite state machines made of meat. But it takes time to spot and learn the patterns of behavior, and as I said, it's a two-way street; the animal has to "open up" and learn you as much as you have to learn them.
It is a kind of thing that's difficult to cleanly verify and reproduce, and it's also kinda mundane. The cases that made headlines look like Clever Hans the other commenter mentioned.
I imagine that a better classifier, some general AI system that gets to learn and observe the animals, would be able to tease out the patterns and then translate them to English, and then that would be reproducable and make for flashy headlines.
The real lesson we should have learned is that horses are stupid and we should have been testing a Border Collie.
And the main comment thinks the whales will have the brains to understand something like space travel or why we desire it?
Then again, you give me an inkling what humans trying to talk to whales will be faced with.
Because I think your analogy is piss poor? Sorry to have contradicted you, Omniscient One! Get the fuck off your high horse, you're nothing special and that was downright offensive and absolutely uncalled for.
If a species has the cognitive capacity that would be required for a language akin to ours (or even more complex than it?) then why do you assume that they wouldn't have concepts like ego, greed, brutality? We already know that animals use tools; what is a weapon but a tool for the purpose of brutality?
Your example of teaching an alien all of humanity in 5 minutes, though: it's silly, and I don't think anyone in the debate here (except, you, apparently) expects that we are going to meld minds with whales in that short a time.
Whale and Dolphin "languages" (or substitute "utterances" if the hypothesis is so antithetical to you) score remarkably complexly, close to Human "utterances" (again, if animal language is so offensive a notion) on some of these measures. Dog utterances do not:
Zipf's Law (Data Efficiency) • Humans: -1.0 slope showing an optimal balance of information and physical effort. • Whales & Dolphins: -1.0 slope matching the exact mathematical curve of human speech. • Dogs: No -1.0 slope, heavily skewed toward isolated, repetitive alert spikes.
Menzerath's Law (Physical Pacing) • Humans: Present; internal sounds get shorter as the total sequence grows longer. • Whales & Dolphins: Present; highly efficient pacing across multiple species. • Dogs: Absent; vocalizations lack the structured phrase sequences required for this law.
Shannon Entropy (Predictability) • Humans: High; complex grammatical dependencies stretch across long sentences. • Whales & Dolphins: Moderate-High; governed by structural rules and click patterns. • Dogs: Very Low; individual sounds are isolated events with no grammatical rules.
Repertoire Size (Signal Diversity) • Humans: Infinite vocabulary built from tens of thousands of words. • Whales & Dolphins: High diversity with hundreds of whistles and thousands of clicks. • Dogs: Very small vocal pool limited to roughly 10 distinct sounds.
I'd say, it's difficult to say, but calling the hypothesis of whale language "absurd" sounds like something someone might have said (and still might say, incorrectly) about the concept of evolution by natural selection. I think you are overselling your argument.
This got my wheels turning. Charismatic megafauna (like whales) already drive the top of the funnel for ecological awareness. Imagine what the cetacean equivalent of the staples baddie could do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_translator
Last time didn't ended well. See Mars Attacks
> Don't be snarky
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html