Michael Levin

So the odds that the guy next to you is the same as you is half, 50%.

There's only two algotypes.

In the end, it is also 50% because the thing that dominates is actually the sorting algorithm.

And the sorting algorithm doesn't care what type you are.

You've got to get the numbers in order.

So by the time you're done, you're back to random algotypes because you have to get the numbers sorted.

Mm-hmm.

But in between, in between, you get some amount of increased, very significant, because look at the control is in the middle, the pink is in the middle.

In between, you get significant amounts of clustering, meaning that certain algotypes like to hang out with their buddies for as long as they can.

Now, here's one more thing, and then I'll kind of give a philosophical significance to this.

And so we saw this and I said, that's nuts because the algorithm doesn't have any provisions for asking what algotype am I, what algotype is my neighbor.

If we're not the same, I'm going to move to be next to, like, if you wanted to implement this, you would have to write a whole bunch of extra steps.

There would have to be a whole bunch of observations that you would have to take of your neighbor to see how he's acting.

Then you would infer what algotype he is.

then you would go stand next to the one that seems to have the same algotype as you.

You would have to take a bunch of measurements to say, wait, is that guy doing bubbles or is he doing selections?

If you want to implement this, it's a whole bunch of algorithmic steps.

None of that exists in our algorithm.

You don't have any way of knowing what algotype you are or what anybody else is.

We didn't have to pay for that at all.