The field of Artificial Life studies the nature of the living state by modeling and synthesizing living systems. Such systems, under certain conditions, may come to deserve moral consideration similar to that given to nonhuman vertebrates or even human beings. The fact that these systems are nonhuman and evolve in a potentially radically different substrate should not be seen as an insurmountable obstacle to their potentially having rights, if they are sufficiently sophisticated in other respects. Nor should the fact that they owe their existence to us be seen as reducing their status as targets of moral concern. On the contrary, creators of Artificial Life may have special obligations to their creations, resembling those of an owner to their pet or a parent to their child. For a field that aims to create artificial life-forms with increasing levels of sophistication, it is crucial to consider the possible ethical implications of our activities, with an eye toward assessing potential moral obligations for which we should be prepared. If Artificial Life is larger than life , then the ethics of artificial beings should be larger than human ethics .

Criticality is thought to be crucial for complex systems to adapt at the boundary between regimes with different dynamics, where the system may transition from one phase to another. Numerous systems, from sandpiles to gene regulatory networks to swarms to human brains, seem to work towards preserving a precarious balance right at their critical point. Understanding criticality therefore seems strongly related to a broad, fundamental theory for the physics of life as it could be, which still lacks a clear description of how life can arise and maintain itself in complex systems. In order to investigate this crucial question, we model populations of Ising agents competing for resources in a simple 2D environment subject to an evolutionary algorithm. We then compare its evolutionary dynamics under different experimental conditions. We demonstrate the utility that arises at a critical state and contrast it with the behaviors and dynamics that arise far from criticality. The results show compelling evidence that not only is a critical state remarkable in its ability to adapt and find solutions to the environment, but the evolving parameters in the agents tend to flow towards criticality if starting from a supercritical regime. We present simulations showing that a system in a supercritical state will tend to self-organize towards criticality, in contrast to a subcritical state, which remains subcritical though it is still capable of adapting and increasing its fitness.

We propose an approach to open-ended evolution via the simulation of swarm dynamics. In nature, swarms possess remarkable properties, which allow many organisms, from swarming bacteria to ants and flocking birds, to form higher-order structures that enhance their behavior as a group. Swarm simulations highlight three important factors to create novelty and diversity: (a) communication generates combinatorial cooperative dynamics, (b) concurrency allows for separation of time scales, and (c) complexity and size increases push the system towards transitions in innovation. We illustrate these three components in a model computing the continuous evolution of a swarm of agents. The results, divided into three distinct applications, show how emergent structures are capable of filtering information through the bottleneck of their memory, to produce meaningful novelty and diversity within their simulated environment.