I thought this would be more relatable, like, "chimpanzee
engineers found pretending to managers about estimates, chimpanzee managers found pretending to listen".
In double-blind experiments across multiple companies, chimpanzee managers were found to be largely statistically indistinguishable from incumbent (presumably human) company managers, except in areas where the chimps exhibited superior skills and performance.
First, an object of the research is pre-human ancestors' tool use:
> Physical evidence of early hominin perishable tools is scarce. However, it is reasonable to assume the mechanical constraints surrounding tool use and manufacture have remained somewhat constant. Using a functional framework to understand the technical capabilities of extant hominoid tool users presents a novel approach to predict the perishable tool-using capabilities of our earliest relatives.
Note that the Paleolithic, the first period of stone tools, started ~2.58 - 3.3 mya (million years ago); stone can be durable since X mya and we have lots of evidence of that. But our evolutionary line split from the chimps' line ~7 mya (though remember the 7 mya shared ancestor was not a chimpanzee; they evolved too). Before the Paleolithic, and even after it began, our ancestors at times likely used tools made from perishable materials - I cooked dinner with a wooden spoon, myself.
Also, there's the question of culture - something once thought unique to humans:
> Our findings provide insights into the technical skills associated with perishable artefact-making and raise questions about how this knowledge is learnt and culturally transmitted.
There are two ways to pass down traits: genetics, and culture. If you think culture is somehow weaker or secondary, look at the traditions or look at languages that have lasted thousands of years with no genetic basis. An advantage of the cultural method is flexibility - it can be changed today; biological evolution takes awhile.
> An advantage of the cultural method is flexibility - it can be changed today
And it can be changed deliberately. Biological evolution is inherently a random search guided by a fixed quality metric -- reproductive fitness. That is not necessarily what a sentient being wants to optimize for.
Damn we gotta ante up, if they're taking away my title of engineer and giving it to chimps, guess I'll just find a job where they can issue me "Doctor" job title. "Doctor and Principal Cybersecurity Engineer" sounds good.
Really coding is more about trying to reason about overly-complex systems that you don’t fully understand for the most part. Legacy cruft with non-obvious dependencies. Poor designs. So, “code doctors” sorta works. Or “code lawyers.”
> A multidisciplinary team of researchers from the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography at the University of Oxford, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Jane Goodall Institute in Tanzania, the University of Algarve and the University of Porto in Portugal, and the University of Leipzig,
so, i have a question; do you think the team of researchers above have no idea what they're doing? these are the people that studied and published the posted research. Do their credentials mean nothing to you?
i so despise this kind of drive-by comments, that just react to the title without reading the article, without being curious at all, empty snarkiness just for a bit of extra karma points. And in the process casting doubt and derisiveness on the scientific process and on the people that dedicate their life to extending human knowledge.
In the researchers’ publication, they didn’t substantiate the claim that chimpanzees are doing engineering (actually they didn’t even define what engineering is or why it would be significant if the chimpanzees were doing it). They document some interesting tool-making behavior, that the chimpanzees are somewhat picky about the material properties of the sticks they use to catch ants.
I assume the researchers know perfectly well what they're doing...but "what they're doing" is much closer to "padding their publication counts" than it is to "making non-trivial scientific discoveries", or "responsible use of limited research funding". Anyone even slightly familiar with the arboreal habits of chimpanzees would realize that those alone would require them to have excellent judgement for the flexibility and strength of long, thin parts of plants. Otherwise, they'd often trust a too-weak branch, and be injured or killed in falls.
In a human world where the validity and value of science are sadly controversial, neither arguments from authority, nor 'how dare you cast doubt' objections, seem compatible with the long term well-being of science.
ok, here is something like that
I watch my horse, choose to roll,in rub over, and generaly luxurate in bayberry shrubs, which are very aromatic,and pay by bieng reduced to kindling
other surviving bayberry bushes, that were used by early european's in Canada for the wax coating of the "berrys" in candle making, are used by birds as food, the berrys ripen in late fall.....just before the song birds migrate, all of the berrys
vanishing over 2 days, the high energy wax
coating, providing a strong start to an arduous trip, and a free long range dispersment for the
long suffering bayberrys......which I have used
the self same leaves as flavoring in food
everything is working a "plan" man, all part of a vast,ancient,intricate,fusion powered, network, we and all we do is just a side hussle for nature
and here in Canada, the term "engineer" is legaly
exclusive to the guys with the iron rings, or the few with the stripy hats
Readit News
https://youtu.be/dHmRLpNQBJU&t=39s
Also https://youtu.be/dHmRLpNQBJU&t=26s
Priceless XD
Co-stochastic co-parrots is where it's at.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181204052813/https://www.newte...
First, an object of the research is pre-human ancestors' tool use:
> Physical evidence of early hominin perishable tools is scarce. However, it is reasonable to assume the mechanical constraints surrounding tool use and manufacture have remained somewhat constant. Using a functional framework to understand the technical capabilities of extant hominoid tool users presents a novel approach to predict the perishable tool-using capabilities of our earliest relatives.
Note that the Paleolithic, the first period of stone tools, started ~2.58 - 3.3 mya (million years ago); stone can be durable since X mya and we have lots of evidence of that. But our evolutionary line split from the chimps' line ~7 mya (though remember the 7 mya shared ancestor was not a chimpanzee; they evolved too). Before the Paleolithic, and even after it began, our ancestors at times likely used tools made from perishable materials - I cooked dinner with a wooden spoon, myself.
Also, there's the question of culture - something once thought unique to humans:
> Our findings provide insights into the technical skills associated with perishable artefact-making and raise questions about how this knowledge is learnt and culturally transmitted.
There are two ways to pass down traits: genetics, and culture. If you think culture is somehow weaker or secondary, look at the traditions or look at languages that have lasted thousands of years with no genetic basis. An advantage of the cultural method is flexibility - it can be changed today; biological evolution takes awhile.
And it can be changed deliberately. Biological evolution is inherently a random search guided by a fixed quality metric -- reproductive fitness. That is not necessarily what a sentient being wants to optimize for.
Deleted Comment
Nonsense!
Source: Engineer
After that, maybe a story about plant 'engineers', growing toward the sun.
so, i have a question; do you think the team of researchers above have no idea what they're doing? these are the people that studied and published the posted research. Do their credentials mean nothing to you?
i so despise this kind of drive-by comments, that just react to the title without reading the article, without being curious at all, empty snarkiness just for a bit of extra karma points. And in the process casting doubt and derisiveness on the scientific process and on the people that dedicate their life to extending human knowledge.
In a human world where the validity and value of science are sadly controversial, neither arguments from authority, nor 'how dare you cast doubt' objections, seem compatible with the long term well-being of science.
Maybe a few of the best will fall when a storm comes but by and large these rot in the sun.
It’s strange how much animals love fruit. All fruit.