Skip to main content

Can Intelligence Emerge from Simplicity?

Image
By

Recently, I joined BrightStar Labs (https://brightstarlabs.ai/) as an affiliate researcher, where I’ve been working on a class of systems known as Emergent Models (EMs). They’re not built like neural networks or traditional programs. Instead, they evolve from very simple beginnings: just a line or grid of colored cells following a small set of update rules. Over time, patterns emerge. Some of those patterns perform tasks that resemble basic forms of computation.

At first, EMs may seem abstract or even mechanical. But the more I work with them, the more they raise interesting questions. These questions aren't just about computation, but about how we understand concepts like memory, intelligence, and structure.

Intelligence Without Intent?

One of the main features of an EM is that it’s not designed in the usual sense. There's no optimizer telling it what to do, and no fixed model architecture. Instead, its behavior is shaped by initial conditions and a rule table that determines how each cell updates based on its neighbors. From this, the system can sometimes learn to solve problems, like multiplying a number by 2, or adding a number with another number.

An example of EM43, an emergent model trained to double numbers using cellular automata. The input n=4 is encoded by a beacon of 5 zeroes followed by a red marker (R), separated from the fixed-length program by two blue cells (B). As the automaton evolves, the interaction between the program and input structure produces the output. Once over 50% of the active cells are blue, the model halts, and the output (here: 8) is decoded from the distance between the final R and the last B cell, illustrating generalization beyond the training range.
Giacomo Bocchese, https://bocchesegiacomo.github.io/em43viewer/

What makes this interesting is that the system doesn’t "know" it’s solving anything. There’s no internal plan or strategy. Yet the outcome still lines up with what we’d expect from a deliberately programmed system. This opens the door to a different kind of question: can a system be intelligent even if it’s not trying to be?

We often associate intelligence with intent, with some idea of purpose or direction. But EMs show that it might be possible to produce intelligent-looking behavior without either. That doesn't make them conscious or aware, but it does suggest that some parts of intelligence may emerge from structural dynamics alone.

Constraint Before Purpose

One of the subtler features of EMs is how they achieve results. There’s no explicit objective or loss function, but the system often evolves into a state that satisfies some kind of constraint, like aligning markers or positioning a cell at the correct spot. This reminds me of how constraint satisfaction works in logic or even in certain types of art. It’s not about reward, but about structure.

This idea might offer an alternative way of thinking about intelligence. Maybe it’s not always about seeking goals. Sometimes, it’s about finding a structure that “fits” a set of conditions, whether or not we understand why. In this sense, EMs don’t model desire or preference, they model alignment.

A Different Lens on Computation

EMs don’t offer a full theory of thought or cognition, and they’re not meant to. But they do raise questions that traditional AI systems don’t. Instead of focusing on prediction, they focus on transformation. Instead of following a loss function, they evolve under structure. Instead of being trained for a task, they simply develop within a system of rules.

This makes them more than a technical curiosity. They give us another way to think about how complex behavior can form, and perhaps even how minds can arise without minds behind them.










(P.S. Thanks to BrightStar Labs founders Giacomo Bocchese, Nicola Giacobbo, and Nicolo Monti for developing the initial theory and mathematics about Emergent Models. Their research preprint can be found here: https://doi.org/10.55277/ResearchHub.70e8enig.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Nothing?

By
What does it mean for nothing to exist? At first, the question sounds simple, even a little silly. But both scientists and philosophers have struggled with the idea of "nothing" for centuries. Is empty space truly empty? Can “nothingness” actually exist, or is it just a word we use when we don’t know what else to say? In this post, we’ll explore how science and philosophy look at the idea of nothingness—from ancient views of the void to modern physics and quantum theory—and ask whether nothing is ever really… nothing. Nothing in Philosophy: The Ancient Void Philosophers have debated the concept of nothingness for thousands of years. In ancient Greece, thinkers like Parmenides argued that “nothing” cannot exist at all. To him, the very act of thinking or speaking about “nothing” meant that it was something , which made the idea of true nothingness impossible. On the other hand, Democritus , who imagined the world as made of tiny atoms, believed that atoms moved through an ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Does String Theory Count as Science?

By
String theory is one of the most ambitious and imaginative ideas in modern physics. It aims to do something no other theory has done: unify all the fundamental forces of nature ( gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force) into a single framework. It replaces point-like particles with tiny vibrating strings , whose vibrations determine the type of particle you observe. But despite its promise, string theory is also one of the most controversial theories, because right now, it can't be tested . So this leads to a deep philosophical question: If a theory explains everything but can’t be tested, does it still count as science? In string theory, fundamental particles like electrons, protons, and quarks are represented as tiny vibrating strings. The type of particle is determined by the string’s vibrational pattern, similar to how different notes come from the same guitar string. Tripathi, A. (2024, March 24). String Theory: Dimensional Implicatio...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning Debates

By
When we look at the universe, it seems almost perfectly set up for the existence of life. Many of the laws of physics work in just the right way to allow stars to form, planets to exist, and complex life to develop. This idea that our universe is “fine-tuned” for life has led to many discussions about what it really means. Some believe it might be just a lucky accident, while others think there could be a deeper reason. These debates bring us to the Anthropic Principle, which is a way of explaining why we see the universe as so well suited for living things. The Puzzle of Fine-Tuning Scientists have found that if certain physical laws or constants—such as the strength of gravity or the charge on the electron—were slightly different, stars might not form or atoms might not stay together. If that happened, life as we know it would not be possible. The universe’s seeming “perfect fit” for life is sometimes called the “fine-tuning” problem, because it is as though these constants were set ...
Post a Comment
Read more