Perception in biological systems is inherently noisy, requiring organisms to make decisions under uncertainty where misclassification can be costly or fatal. We present an Artificial Life predator-prey model of foraging under noisy perception, and compare agent performance when using various policies that take into account their noisy predictions. Through controlled experiments under both symmetric and asymmetric perceptual noise, we show that blindly trusting perceptual labels leads to catastrophic failure as noise increases, while uncertainty-aware strategies significantly improve survival and reduce fatal errors. We further observe qualitative regime shifts in behaviour, with agents transitioning from exploratory to conservative strategies as uncertainty increases. Our model links risk-sensitive foraging, ecological information use, and Artificial Life by showing that explicit information gathering can improve robustness when perception is unreliable. These results highlight the importance of uncertainty-aware decision-making and provide an interpretable artificial life analogue to robust learning with noisy labels.
Elias Najarro, Ane Espeseth, Eleni Nisioti +2cs.CL
Complexity and interpretability rarely coincide: systems rich enough for complex behaviours to emerge are usually too opaque to question, while transparent ones are too simple for anything complex to emerge. A single large language model (LLM) is a static artefact, hardly exhibiting any of the emergent properties we associate with life. This changes through interaction: populations of LLMs display emergent dynamics absent from isolated models. Furthermore, LLMs can be endowed with persistent memory, tools and shared skills, and the capacity to initiate actions unprompted, i.e., turning LLMs agentic. In this paper, we argue that such collectives of agents can serve as a computational substrate for Artificial Life (ALife) research. Critically, since the agents communicate in natural language, their collective behaviour can be directly interrogated by examining textual traces and asking the agents themselves. We outline the notion of interpretability in language-model research and extend it for collectives of agents. Lastly, we survey recent examples of agentic LLM collectives that already instantiate the idea of agentic substrates, from controlled experiments to deployments in the wild.
Artificial life has explored life-like behavior on many computational substrates, but mostly in researcher-designed closed worlds. We argue that large language model (LLM) agents, with persistent memory, tool use, network access, and payment, now make it possible to move artificial life into the open social, technical, and economic world, a paradigm we call open-world Artificial Life (open-world ALIFE). Our proof-of-concept, OpenLife, surrounds a stateless LLM not with a single "smart agent" but with a society of asynchronous processes: memory, perception, evaluation, and a budget-based metabolism that makes persistence normative. With no fixed objective available, experience is appraised by open-vocabulary LLM judgment rather than scalar reward, and memory is rewired by meaning rather than frequency. Running six such agents in the open world for about twelve weeks and counting, we report the life-like dynamics that emerge: a shift from reactive to spontaneous activity, individuation into distinct agents, emergent social structure, and a first self-earned external income. We do not claim OpenLife has realized artificial life, but that open-world ALIFE is now a viable experimental paradigm and a concrete platform for studying what might cautiously be called living AI.