Be the Dinosaur

Um, excuse me but you seem to have left out something important...where's the saddle for jesus to ride in?

This was neat. If I had ready access to this I might never do anything else again. Now all they need to do is speed it up by a million and add an evolution algorithm.

I do think the bait-and-ambush move that the Tyrannosaurs use was sprinkled with pixie dust. People talk about pack hunting in reptiles but I haven't read about anything as sophisticated as that.

Still, I guess it's not impossible. It does seem a little far-fetched to be part of an educational exhibit where it could become part of popular mythology like the equally-dubious (to me, at least) pack-hunting Deinonychii. (Is that how you handle the multiple of Deinonychus?)

I liked the handling of the feather issue, if I'm right in assuming that the spines on the neck and tail-tip are intended to be modified feathers. To pick some nits I'd suggest that it would have been better to give them 'manes' and tail-tufts rather than having them run along the ridge of the spine like the scutes on an iguana.

Now I'm wishing they'd find a Tyrannosaur forearm with feather attachment points so I could have a good reason to do a reconstruction showing some peacock-style display fans on their arms... ... but if wishes were horses right now I'd be crushed to death under a pile of ponies.

I'm quite glad Be the Dinosaur is being picked up, as I have been involved in this. Thanks for this post.

The coordinated hunting behaviours seen in the video are actually completely spontaneous and the developers had nothing to do with it. There are no preprogrammed behaviours that prioritise cooperation with other tyrannosaurs - just some basic drives and needs and the AI does the rest...it could very well be that one T. rex was too dumb and ran straight into the two Triceratops while the other rex decided to have a leisurely stroll and just happened to come up behind the Trices and saw an opportunity. Who knows...But the two rexes happily share their kill so whatever the reason for this coordinated hunting to have happened, at least the AIs seem to prioritise cooperation.

That's fascinating. It makes me think of some of the things I've read about the use of AIs in animating large-scale battle scenes -- a simple set of rules winds up generating very complex behavior that parallels what you'd see in 'real' life.

This is kind of nit-picky (okay, really nit-picky, I'm the pettiest person on the planet) and is not intended to be a slam, but that makes this seem less like a dinosaur exhibit and more like a dinosaur-themed example of artificial life.

Manabu, since you were involved with this is there any way you could share with us the intentions behind the exhibit?

Sean - I can share the intentions behind the exhibit with you. I'm the creative director for the company that produced Be the Dinosaur and I designed the concept and, along with two very talented partners and an incredibly talented team of programmers and artists, implemented it.

There are really a few intentions behind the exhibit but first and foremost it is a desire to help museum visitors see dinosaurs not as isolated specimens in a hall or as individual mechanical recreations but rather as living creatures that were part and parcel of the world in which they lived.

To that end, the environment was recreated with as much attention as the 'recreations' of the dinosaurs. Plants 'grow' in the areas that foster their growth (forest floors for some, along riverbanks for others, etc.) the 'atmosphere' has wind patterns and these winds disperse odors that emanate from both plants and animals. The animals can hunt (and be alerted to danger) by odors and they each have simple 'digestive systems' as well as 'musculature', they have proper centers of gravity, etc..

I'm sure that I don't need to mention that television and filmed documentaries usually place CG animated dinosaurs against modern filmed backgrounds. This is the first instance, to my knowledge (please correct me if I am wrong), of the entire environment being recreated and I think this can have some interesting implications for the science just as a thought experiment and visualization - could adult tyrannosaurs really have hunted in forests given densities of life similar to modern forest, for example?

The intent was to be as accurate as we could be in a simulation of this size and scope - something else that, to my knowledge, has never been attempted before in the museum environment. We took care to consult at every possible level with wonderful advisors like Manabu, like Drs. Hutchinson, Russell, Farlow, Holtz, Dr. Klass for the nutritive value of plants, etc.. Not to name drop - but its the quickest way to represent to you that we tried to be accurate.

The exhibit, as I said, is an attempt to visualize in an interactive and immersive way what it would have been like to "be" a dinosaur. What you need to know, when entering that simulation, is what an animal would have needed to know about its environs... where do I find food? What kinds of food are better than others? How do I deal with others of my own kind? How do I defend? How do I attack (if applicable, how do I use the terrain? This information is found in the more traditional sections of the exhibit - along with explanations of how we recreated the dinosaurs to help people understand how fossil remains can help you to make educated guesses as to the behaviors of creatures that have been dead for so long.

Is this an example of artificial life or a dinosaur exhibit? I'd say it is both. These are artificial intelligences but they are designed to know just basic things about their environment, themselves and the creatures that share there world and as near as we can figure - that's what animals are programmed with. Do we contend this is how dinosaurs DID act? No. But they may have acted this way. I would say that this is a dinosaur themed example of artificial life in the same way that scientific visualizations of fleshed out dinosaurs are examples of dinosaur themed artwork. We don't know what these creatures really looked like - but this is a good, measured, educated guess... same holds true for their behavior. Just as artwork and visualizations help to move the conversation forward - they are not "science" in and of themselves - this simulation (it is hoped) will do the same.

Of course an important part of this exhibit is the ability to explore competing theories for yourself and to make your own decisions. In a traditional exhibit, documentary or recreation, typically the project leads pick a particular theory or line of thought and they follow that. With life restorations or fossil mounts - you have to pick something and go with it. Did triceratops have sprawled croc-like articulation to its front limbs or were they straight underneath - or is it somewhere in between? Did dromaeosaurs have brightly colored arm feathers or drab brown? That kind of thing - with this exhibit we took the opportunity inherent in our simulation approach to examine multiple lines of thought - which leads to something else that you had mentioned...

The tyrannosaurs pack hunt - which is exciting because this is a spontaneous development and not something we programmed... but we HAVE programmed it such that we keep them from ALWAYS performing a particular behavior... so on one entry into the virtual cretaceous you may encounter tyrannosaurs that cooperate, on the next you may face them as solo animals. One time the triceratops may group together for protection while browsing the plains - in another they may be solo and in the forests. Tyrannosaurs may also be predators or scavengers - or both. As the software explands (we are currently in the test phase and we will also be constantly updating it through the lifespan of the exhibit) we will see more of these alternate representations of theory.

We point these different possibilities out to visitors - and the best part is that they, themselves, can choose to try these behaviors and make up their own minds.

We've found that hunting triceratops is no walk in the park. Literally one wrong move, one ill-timed lunge and a triceratops horn can kill an attacking tyrannosaur. Maybe we need to tweak their attributes, and we are, but given their physical forms and what we know about their likely capabilities, what we see in the simulation seems to make sense.

Scavenging has its own ups and downs - and like I said - people can try each method of making a living, think about it and maybe make up their own minds.

The goal is to foster a curiosity, to engender opinions rather than accepting whatever is seen as fact. So I don't think you need to be concerned about us trying to promote ideas like this as gospel. We take great pains, at every turn, to try and inform visitors as to the ambiguity of the science.

The other thing we do, besides referring back to the actual evidence, is to give people an understanding of modern ecosystems, predator prey relationships, etc.. As our advisors do, we relate the recreated animals to modern animals in similar ecological roles and apply elements of their behavior to the dinosaurs. We look at food chains and such...

This is a simple look at such large topics, to be sure. You don't have hours with most museum vistors (although in our test experience we have seen people spending unprecedented amounts of time in the exhibit - 2-3 hours, some families returning 3-4 days in a row just to see it... this doesn't normally occur) and you have to give them enough information to spark their desire to learn and not so much that they are overwhelmed - with a topic such as dinosaurs and their world this is a tough job and we've spent a lot of time and effort trying to enable an expansive experience while balancing these other factors.

So - we are trying to give people what they've always wanted, really. When people, kids especially, go to a museum what they would REALLY like to do is to BE the dinosaur, explore for yourself some of the 'big' questions. What did they do all day? Did they herd? Were they solo? Did they hunt or scavenge? Why are predators important to an ecosystem? What are the implications of all of these behaviors and questions? The goal was to spark thought - and to thrill the audience.

Sure, it's not possible to really "be" a dinosaur - but we've applied the latest technologies and 'next generation' level development resources to something that, we believe, can help us get closer than ever before.

And hopefully, along the way, this project can contribute to the science. Just watching tyrannosaurs and triceratops range about each other, moving over uneven terrain, using the landscape to hide or in defense, etc., seeing how they interact in a framework that enforces rules similar to those of our physical world is fascinating and I think there may be use for the exhibit beyond education.

Anyway - sorry for rambling. This is my favorite subject :) I've actually ghosted this blog for a while now and am really pleased that Brian found the exhibit and was kind enough to post on it.

Please do make any comments, feel free to email me if you'd like to make suggestions or nitpick further - it only helps us to improve.

Keith -- thank you very much for your well-stated position. You've made yourself quite clear and now the project seems much more interesting to me than it did on first exposure -- and I found it fascinating in the first place.

My only quibble, and quibble is the proper word, is the idea of leading people to 'make up their own minds.' These issues are so far from settled that while it's legitimate to have an opinion, no-one should have their minds made up. Picky, picky, picky.

Your points regarding the intersection of art and science are well-taken and as an amateur who dabbles in the reconstruction of extinct animals I feel quite gratified by your statements.

Sean,

I thank you for your comments. We're doing a lot of things that haven't been done before and it's a daunting task. We've worked on this in isolation (in contact with advisors) for years and its really just great to get others opinions finally.

Your quibble about making up their own minds - well, that's what a museum exhibit is for. I've always felt like the best exhibits didn't try to answer all the questions, they didn't try and represent the total sum of knowledge on a subject - because they can't. You just don't have the time with your audience. Instead my favorite exhibits gave an interesting overview and provided a fresh perspective. A new way of looking at a topic that sparks the imagination and intellectual curiosity of the visitor.

If you look at the third video we have up on Youtube - the test audiences seem to be really into it. Interestingly both young and old are taking to it. We didn't expect that.

In the end, "making up their own minds" is just a way of stating that the visitor will come out of there with something invested in the topic. Let them "feel" that T. rex would have been a scavenger - or a hunter - or both. Let them feel ownership of that such that they want to seek out more information. After all, the majority of visitors may have had no opinion on the subject before. They may never have thought about dinosaurs as anything but movie monsters. If that's the case we've done a great service - and for the more paleo-fied visitor there's there additional depth in the simulation, and the additional depth in your knowledge to enjoy and be interested in the artificial creatures on another level or levels.

I'm gratified by your interest, I'm happy to answer any questions and entertain any suggestions as the exhibit's simulation will constantly be updated.