> In 1986 Craig Reynolds encoded this insight as three rules:
This part just left a really bad taste in my mouth. I am not against using LLMs to write stuff but please proof read what it writes before posting it.
The way it's written it's sounds like Craig Renault travelled in time to 2010 to come up with his rules for boids
Sorry about your mouth!
I can't even call this LLM smell at this point it's a stench.
- the writing always feels self-important. I would feel a lot more receptive if I perceived that the writer came from a place of humility
- like you pointed out, overuse of writing techniques that work best if used sparingly. Sentence fragments can be effective for emphasizing a point, but if you use it in every. Single. paragraph, the effect is gone. It’s very amateurish.
Ecto, I see that you’re reading and responding to comments. In your own words, concisely, and assuming I know what what boids are: what sets this apart?
Aside from "look ma, machine learning!" I noticed exactly one thing that sets your implementation aside from any other example I've seen before. It seems quite odd to me that you didn't select either neural networks or that feature for this answer.
Also the performance analysis section contains several questionable claims.
[0] https://dawn.googlesource.com/dawn/+/refs/heads/main/src/daw...
There’s a saying, “people are smart but crowds are dumb”. One wonders if humans in crowds subconsciously do something like flocking.
Maybe there’d be bird stampedes too, if they didn’t have wings ;)
As long as the birds can't change direction too quickly (e.g. output acceleration, not velocity) I'd guess you get flocking.
What if they weren't noids?
But this isn't actually recreating murmurations, is it? This is a neural network that's using the Reynolds criteria as a loss function, with Cavagna's topological neighbors?
As far as I know, there's no good research that reproduces the murmations seen in starling flocks. This seems like it would be a good use case for neural networks but I don't know of any publicly available 3d data of actual starling flocks, aside from some random YouTube videos floating around.
> it’s not communication. It’s physics.
Dude, if you’re going to go to all the trouble to make something cool why don’t you take like 20 minutes to write in your own voice about it! I’m so tired of reading robot slop.
> Each bird tracks about 6-7 neighbors. Not the closest by distance, but the closest by rank. Bird number 1 through 7, sorted by proximity.
I mean, it sounds like it is exactly the 7 closest birds by distance?
