Could orcas be (trained to be) smarter than humans?
8Towards_Keeperhood
3Towards_Keeperhood
2Towards_Keeperhood
5Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel
1Towards_Keeperhood
-1Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel
5Jeremy Gillen
4Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel
4Jeremy Gillen
1Towards_Keeperhood
1Towards_Keeperhood
1Towards_Keeperhood
4ryan_greenblatt
9Yair Halberstadt
5Carl Feynman
3Towards_Keeperhood
4Morpheus
1Towards_Keeperhood
4Dennis Zoeller
4Steven Byrnes
4Gunnar_Zarncke
4Towards_Keeperhood
4Yair Halberstadt
New Answer
New Comment
2 Answers sorted by
*
80(Major edits added on 2024-11-29.)
Some of my own observations and considerations:
Anecdotal evidence for orca intelligence
(The first three anecdotes were added 2024-11-29.)
- Orcas leading orca researcher on boat 15miles home through the fog. (See the 80s clip starting from 8:10 in this youtube video.)
- Orcas can use bait.
- An orca family hunting a seal can pretend to give up and retreat and when the seal comes out thinking it's safe then BAM one orca stayed behind to catch it. (Told by Lance Barrett-Lennard somewhere in this documentary.[1])
- Intimate cooperation between native australian
hunter gathererswhale hunters and orcas for whale hunting around 1900: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whales_of_Eden,_New_South_Wales - Orcas being skillful at turning boats around and even sinking a few vessels[2][3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_orca_attacks
- Orcas have a wide variety of cool hunting strategies. (e.g. see videos (1, 2)). I don't know how this compares to human hunter gatherers. (EDIT: Ok I just read Scott Alexander's Book review of "The Secret of our success" and some anecdotes on hunter gatherers there seem much more impressive. (But also plausible to me that other orca hunting techniques are also more sophisticated than the examples but in ways it might not be legible to us.))
(ADDED 2024-11-10[4]: Tbc, while this is more advanced than I'd a priory expected from animals, the absence of observations of even more clearly stunning techniques is some counterevidence of orcas being smarter than humans. Though I also don't quite point to an example of what I'd expect to see if orcas were actually 250 IQ but what I don't observe, but I also didn't think for long and maybe there would be sth.)
(Mild counterevidence added 2024-12-02:)
- Btw it's worth noting that orcas do sometimes get tangled up in fishing gear or strand (and die of that), though apparently less frequently than other cetaceans, though didn't check precisely whether it's really less per individual.
- Worth noting that there are only 50000-100000 orcas in the world, which is less than for many other cetacean species, though not sure whether it's less in terms of biomass.
Orca language
(EDIT: Perhaps just skip this orca language section. Relevant is that orca language is definitely learned and not innate. Otherwise not much is known, except that we can eyeball the complexity of their calls. You could take a look by listening[5] here.[6] I'd say it seems very slightly less complex than in humans (though could be more) and much more complex than what is observed in other land animals.)
(Warning: Low confidence. What I say might be wrong.)
I didn't look deep into research into orca language (not much more than watching this documentary), my impression is that we don't know much yet.
Some observations:
- Orcas language seems to be learned, not innate. Different regions have different languages and dialects. Scientists seem to analogize it to how humans speak different languages in different countries.
- For some orca groups that were studied, scientists were able to cluster their calls into 23 or 24 different calls clusters, but still with significant variation of calls within a call cluster.
- (I do not know how tightly calls are clustered, or whether there often are outliers.)
- Orcas communicate a lot. (This might be wrong but I think they spend a significant fraction of their time socializing where they exchange multiple calls per minute.)
- (Orcas emit clicks and whistles. The clicks are believed to be for spacial navigation (especially in the dark), the whistles for communication.) (EDIT: Actually also pulsed calls, which I initially lumped in with whistles but are emitted in pulses. Those are probably the main medium of communication.)
I'd count (2) as some weakish evidence against orcas having as sophisticated language as humans, however not very strongly. Some considerations:
- Sentences don't necessarily need to be formed through having temporal sequences of words, but words could also be some different frequency signals or so which are then simultanously overlayed.
- (The different 24 call types could be all sorts of things. E.g. conveying what we convey through body language, facial expressions, and tone. Or e.g. different sentence structures. Idk.)
- Their language might be very alien. I only have shitty considerations here but e.g.:
- Orca language doesn't need to have at all similar grammar. E.g. could be something as far from our language as logic programming is, though in the end still not nearly that simple.
- Orcas might often describe situations in ways we wouldn't describe them. E.g. rather about what movements they and their prey executed or sth.
- Orcas might describe more precisely where in 3D water particular orcas and animals were located, and they might have a much more efficient encoding for that than if we tried to communicate this.
More considerations
The onlymain piece of evidence that makes me wonder whether orcas might actually be significantly smarter than humans is their extremely impressive brain. I think it's pretty strong though.
As mentioned, orcas have 2.05 times as many neurons in their neocortex as humans, and when I look through the wikipedia list (where I just trust measured[7] and not estimated values), it seems to be a decent proxy for how intelligent a species is.
There needs to be some selection pressure for why they have 160 times more neurons in their neocortex than e.g. brown bears (which weigh like 1/8th of an orca or so). Size alone is not nearly a sufficient explanation.
It's plausible that for both humans and orcas the relevant selection pressure mostly came from social dynamics, and it's plausible that there were different environmental pressures. (I'm keen to learn.) It's possible that caused humans to be smart more strongly incentivized our brains to be able to do abstract reasoning, whereas for orcas it might've been useful for some particular skills that generalize less well for doing other stuff.
If I'd only ever seen hunter gatherer humans, even if I could understand their language, I'm not sure I'd expect that species to be able to do science on priors. But humans are able to do it. Somehow our intelligence generalized far outside the distribution we were optimized on. I don't think that doing science is similar to anything we've been optimized on, except that advanced language might be necessary.
On priors I wouldn't really see significant reasons why whatever selection pressures optimized orcas to have their astounding brains, would make their intelligence generalize less well to doing science, than whatever selection pressures produced our impressive human brains.
One thing that would update me significantly downwards on orcas being able to do science is if their prefrontal cortex doesn't contain that many neurons. (I didn't find that information quickly so please lmk if you find it.) Humans have a very large prefrontal cortex compared to other animals. My guess would be that orcas have too, and that they probably still have >1.5 times as many neurons in their prefrontal cortex than humans, and TBH I even wouldn't be totally shocked if it's >2.5 times. (EDIT: The cortex of the cetacean brain is organized differently than in most mammals and AFAIK we currently cannot map functionality very well.)
(Read my comments below to see more thoughts.)
- ^
You might need a VPN to canada to watch it.
- ^
Btw there is no recorded case of a human having been killed by an orca in the wild, including when they needed to swim when the vessel was sunk. (Even though orcas often eat other mammals.) (I think I even once heard it mention that it seemed like the orcas made sure that no humans died from their attacks, though I don't at all know how active the role of the orcas was there (my guess is not very).)
- ^
I'd consider it plausible that they were trying to signal us to please stop fishing that much, but I didn't look nearly deeply enough into it to judge.
- ^
Actually I don't remember exactly when I added this. I still think it's true but to a weaker extent than I originally thought.
- ^
Or downloading the files and looking at the spectrogram in e.g. audacity.
- ^
If you want to take a deeper look, here are more recordings.
- ^
Aka optical or isotropic fractionator in the method column.
Another thought:
In what animals would I on priors expect intelligence to evolve?
- Animals which use collaborative hunting techniques.
- Large animals. (So the neurons make up a smaller share of the overall metabolic cost.)
- Animals that can use tools so they benefit more from higher intelligence.
- (perhaps some other stuff like cultural knowledge being useful, or having enough slack for intelligence increase from social dynamics being possible.)
AFAIK, orcas are the largest animals that use collaborative hunting techniques.[1] That plausibly puts them second be...
An argument against orcas being more intelligent than humans runs thus: Orcas are much bigger than humans, so the fraction of the metabolic cost the brain consumes is smaller than in humans. Thus it took more selection pressure for humans to evolve having 21billion neurons than for orcas to have 43billion.[1] Thus humans might have other intelligence-increasing mutations that orcas didn't evolve yet.
So the question here is "how much does scale matter vs other adaptations". Luckily, we can get some evidence on that by looking at other species and ratin...
2
15
EDIT: I was a bit hasty and phrased this wrong, I didn't mean to suggest roundtrip is quadratic in length. The max roundtrip time is twice the diameter.
The density of neurons matters a lot. A larger brain means it takes longer for signals to propagate. If the brain is 2x larger, it takes 4x longer for a two way communication. This is a large constraint in both biological brains and GPU design.
1
Actually out of curiosity, why 4x? (And what exactly do you mean by "2x larger"?) (And is this for a naive algorithm which can be improved upon or a tight constraint?)
-1
I highly recommend the following sources for a deep dive into these topics and more:
Jacob Cannells' brain efficiency post https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xwBuoE9p8GE7RAuhd/brain-efficiency-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know [thought take the Landauer story with a grain of salt]
and the extraordinary Principles of Neural Design by Sterling & Laughlin https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262534680/principles-of-neural-design/
5
Could you explain or directly link to something about the 4x claim? Seems wrong. Communication speed scales with distance not area.
I thought the consensus on that post was that it was mostly bullshit?
4
Sorry i phrased this wrong. You are right. I meant roundtrip time which is twice the length but scales linearly not quadratically.
I actually ran the debate contest to get to the bottom of Jake Cannells arguments. Some of the argument, especially around the landauer argument dont hold up but i think it s important not to throw out the baby with bathwater. I think most of the analysis holds up.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fm88c8SvXvemk3BhW/brain-efficiency-cannell-prize-contest-award-ceremony
4
Yeah I read that prize contest post, that was much of where I got my impression of the "consensus". It didn't really describe which parts you still considered valuable. I'd be curious to know which they are? My understanding was that most of the conclusions made in that post were downstream of the Landauer limit argument.
1
Thanks for pointing that out! I will tell my friends to make sure they actually get good data for the metabolic cost and not just use cortical neuron count as proxy if they cannot find something good.
(Or is there also another point you wanted to make?) And yeah it's actually also an argument for why orcas might be less intelligent (if they sorta use their neurons less often). Thanks.
1
My guess is that there probably aren't a lot of simple mutations which just increase intelligence without increasing cortical neuron count. (Though probably simple mutations can shift the balance between different sub-dimensions of intelligence as constrained through cortical neuron count.) (Also of course any particular species has a lot of deleterious mutations going around and getting rid of those may often just increase intelligence, but I'm talking about intelligence-increasing changes to the base genome.)
But there could be complex adaptations that are very important for abstract reasoning. Metacognition and language are the main ones that come to mind.
So even if the experiment my friends to will show that the number of cortical neurons is a strong indicator, it could still be that humans were just one of the rare cases which evolved a relevant complex adaptation. But it would be significant evidence for orcas being smarter.
A few more thoughts:
It's plausible that for both humans and orcas the relevant selection pressure mostly came from social dynamics, and it's plausible that there were different environmental pressures.
Actually my guess would be that it's because intelligence was environmentally adaptive, because my intuitive guess would be that group selection[1] is significant enough over long timescales which would disincentivize intelligence if it's not already (almost) useful enough to warrant the metabolic cost, unless the species has a lot of slack.
So an importa...
Douglas Adams answered this long ago of course:
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
Do we have a sense for how much of the orca brain is specialized for sonar? About a third of the human brain is specialized to visual perception. If sonar is harder than vision, evolution might have dedicated more of the orca brain to it. On the other hand, orcas don't need a bunch of brain for manual dexterity, like us.
In humans, the prefrontal cortex is dedicated to "higher" forms of thinking. But evolution slides functions around on the cortical surface, and (Claude tells me) association areas like the prefrontal cortex are particularly prone to this. Just looking for the volume of the prefrontal cortex won't tell you how much actual thought goes on there.
Do we have a sense for how much of the orca brain is specialized for sonar?
I don't know.
But evolution slides functions around on the cortical surface, and (Claude tells me) association areas like the prefrontal cortex are particularly prone to this.
It's particularly bad for cetaceans. Their functional mapping looks completely different.
I had a discussion with @Towards_Keeperhood what we would expect in the world where orcas either are or aren't more intellectually capable than humans if trained. Main pieces I remember were: Orcas already dominating the planet (like humans do), large sea creatures going extinct due to orcas (similar to how humans drove several species extinct (Megalodon? Probably extinct for different reasons, weak evidence against? Most other large whales are still around)). I argued that @Towards_Keeperhood was also underestimating the intricacies that hunter-gatherers are capable of, and gave the book review for the secret of our success as an example. I think @Towards_Keeperhood did update in that direction after reading that post. I also reread that post and funnily enough stumbled over some evidence that orcas might have fallen into a similar "culture attractor" for intelligence, like humans:
Learn from old people. Humans are almost unique in having menopause; most animals keep reproducing until they die in late middle-age. Why does evolution want humans to stick around without reproducing?
Because old people have already learned the local culture and can teach it to others. Heinrich asks us to throw out any personal experience we have of elders; we live in a rapidly-changing world where an old person is probably “behind the times”. But for most of history, change happened glacially slowly, and old people would have spent their entire lives accumulating relevant knowledge. Imagine a world where when a Silicon Valley programmer can’t figure out how to make his code run, he calls up his grandfather, who spent fifty years coding apps for Google and knows every programming language inside and out.
Quick google search revealed Orcas have menopause too! While chimpanzees don't! I would not have predicted that.
Main pieces I remember were: Orcas already dominating the planet (like humans do), large sea creatures going extinct due to orcas (similar to how humans drove several species extinct, (Megalodon? Probably extinct for different reasons, weak evidence against? Most other large whales are still around)).
To clarify for other readers: I do not necessarily endorse this is what we would expect if orcas were smart.
(Also I read somewhere that apparently chimpanzees sometimes/rarely can experience menopause in captivity.)
I'd put a reasonably high probability (5%) on orcas and several other species having all the necessary raw mental capacity to be "uplifted" in just a few (<20) generations with technology (in the wider sense) that has been available for a long time. Being uplifted means here the ability to intellectually engage with us on a near-equal or even equal footing, to create culture, to actively shape their destiny. Humans have been training, selecting, shaping other animals since before the dawn of history. Whenever we did so, it was with the goal of improving their use as tools or resources. Never, to my knowledge, has there been a sustained effort to put these abilities to use for the sole purpose of the mental and cultural flourishing of another species. It is my belief that many other universal learning machines beside the human brain have been produced by evolution, but just lack or lacked the right training environment for the kind of run-away development the homo genus went through, for various reasons.
Could "uplifted" orcas outperform humans on hard scientific problems? Would they care to? I don't know, but I'd love to find out.
Indeed, I would have very much preferred to see other animal minds elevated before we turned to the creation of artificial ones. To explore a wider space of minds and values, to learn more about what an intelligent species can be, before we believed ourselves ready to "build" intelligence from scratch. But it seems at least half a century too late for this now.
As I commented on Are big brains for processing sensory input? I predict that the brain regions of a whale or Orca responsible for spatiotemporal learning and memory are a big part of their encephalization.
In the wikipedia list, the estimated number of neurons in the neocortex of a blue whale is 5 billion (compared to 43 billion in orcas), even though blue whales are much larger. (Unfortunately the blue whale estimate is just an estimate and not grounded in optical or isotropic fractionation measurements.)
(EDIT: Hm interesting, the linked reddit post mentions 15billion for blue whales. Not sure what is correct.)
I imagine that part of the difference is because Orcas are hunters, and need much more sophisticated sensors + controls.
I gigantic jellyfish wouldn't have the same number of neurons as a similarly sized whale, so it's not just about size, but how you use that size.
Curated and popular this week
