[HN Gopher] Parrots learn to make video calls to chat with other...
___________________________________________________________________
Parrots learn to make video calls to chat with other parrots: study
Author : tosh
Score : 371 points
Date : 2023-04-22 07:33 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.northeastern.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.northeastern.edu)
| eimrine wrote:
| Skype for parrots - what a great startup idea! If parrot is in a
| cage and not sleeping and not talking to other parrots then
| consider him online. A large sensor display in a cage with image
| of online parrots, you just peek a bird and go. And of course,
| any time you are online somebody might call you.
| euroderf wrote:
| I want to see the tiktok dance challenges as adapted for parrots.
| rurban wrote:
| Much better than the guardian link
| 1Engels wrote:
| Then the parrots could make a better UI than that website
| Findecanor wrote:
| I'm curious to how the parrots perceive the video images ... with
| cameras, codecs and screens tuned to a human visual system.
|
| While our eyes have three primaries (red, green, blue), birds
| have _four_ and can see into the ultraviolet -- which is missing.
| The "cones" in their retinas also have additional colour
| filters, which allows them to notice differences in hues, and
| thereby quantisation in the codec's colour planes easier than
| humans. Birds' eyes are also faster, so they might find the frame
| rate to be irritatingly low, and PWM-driven backlight would need
| to use high frequencies so as to not be perceived as flickering.
|
| The paper does mention these issues and finds that the birds seem
| to _cope_ -- but I anticipate that they would give criticism if
| they could. :)
| haolez wrote:
| This got me thinking: what would we see if we implanted (with a
| futuristic tech) cones that can see ultraviolet? Would we see a
| new color? Or perhaps our brain would recalibrate and
| ultraviolet would be the new purple?
| gpderetta wrote:
| Egan wrote a short story ("Seventh Sight", collected in
| "Instantiation") about a subculture of otherwise blind people
| that hack their optic protheses to see ultraviolet.
|
| Excellent as usual, if you like Egan.
| wcoenen wrote:
| > _if we implanted (with a futuristic tech) cones that can
| see ultraviolet?_
|
| The information also needs to make it from the retina to the
| brain. Surprisingly, there are no separate red/green/blue
| channels for the different cone types. Instead, there is a
| channel for the difference between red vs green, and another
| for the difference between between blue vs (red+green).
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826135/
|
| So adding a new cone type would not be enough, it would also
| have to be represented in one of these channels, or a new
| channel.
| bitwize wrote:
| Our cones can already perceive ultraviolet. The lenses of our
| eyes filter UV out. That is why we are prone to cataracts;
| the UV light the lens absorbs clouds it over time.
|
| People who lack eye lenses have been reported to see
| ultraviolet as a light, bright purple. Maybe if you had a
| tetrachromat with no lens, she would see it differently, I
| don't know.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I've heard people argue that Monet could see UV light after
| having cataract surgery as his lens was removed.
|
| Others argue that this wasn't the case, but it's interesting
| either way.
|
| https://www.quora.com/Could-Monet-really-see-Ultraviolet-
| lig...
| leetrout wrote:
| This made me wonder how long we have been doing cataract
| surgery...
|
| > In 1753, Samuel Sharp performed the first documented
| intracapsular cataract extraction (ICCE).
|
| I would not have guessed 1753.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Color vision is based on two signals, one that varies between
| red and green and one that varies between yellow and blue.
|
| So a cone integrated normally would probably just come across
| as further blue and a better purple, not something notably
| distinct from existing colors. Getting the full use out of
| more cones would require a significant rework to how our
| optical nerves work.
| perfmode wrote:
| there are already some people in the population who have
| enhanced visual perception. i believe they have a fourth
| cone.
| bassrattle wrote:
| Yes! It's called terachromatism, and I gather they perceive
| color nearly the same except the subtle differences between
| colors is more pronounced.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| I know our brains are already capable of rendering impossible
| colors produced whenever certain cone cells are intentionally
| fatigued
| dorfsmay wrote:
| Humans took pictures and watched movies and TV in black and
| white without any issue. High def colour is nice but not a must
| have to communicate.
| pimlottc wrote:
| They did, but not without a lot of tricks to compensate for
| the uneven color sensitivity of early black and white film.
| Standard makeup didn't look right on film so they adopted
| some very extreme styles just so things would look "normal"
| on screen [0].
|
| The point is, there's no "objective" version of black and
| white, or full-color, or full-color-except-for-ultraviolent.
| They're all tuned for our specific visual perception and may
| look bizarre past the point of recognition for other species.
|
| 0: https://cosmeticsandskin.com/aba/max-and-the-tube.php
| TomK32 wrote:
| You can go further back to the art created by our ancestors:
| cave paintings, carved stone figurines and cubism can all be
| understood by modern humans who are 99% of their time
| confronted with a high resolution environment.
| bhawks wrote:
| If anything I would say their ability to cope with the poor
| medium indicates even more complex levels of understanding.
|
| They are able to reason that it is a real bird, it is not
| physically present, doesn't sound perfect, doesnt look right
| but they still engage despite all of that friction.
| Swizec wrote:
| What's worse: My parrot will happily attack the screen when
| I'm talking on FaceTime and he deems it's been long enough or
| doesn't like the human on the other end.
|
| For example he lets me talk to my sister but attacks my mom's
| video immediately.
| andai wrote:
| Where can I learn more about this stuff? Also for other
| animals.
|
| I remember reading that a fly's "framerate" is so high, it
| doesn't see an image on TV, just the dot created by the
| electron beam slowly making its way across.
| roughly wrote:
| Ed Yong just put out a book, "An Immense World," all about
| animal senses and how they experience the world. It's
| magical.
|
| https://bookshop.org/p/books/an-immense-world-how-animal-
| sen...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| > A new study shows that their rapid vision may be a result
| of their photoreceptors - specialised cells found in the
| retina - physically contracting in response to light. The
| mechanical force then generates electrical responses that are
| sent to the brain much faster than, for example, in our own
| eyes, where responses are generated using traditional
| chemical messengers.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2012-10-eye-mystery-insight-flies-
| fast...
| wanderingstan wrote:
| If you like this, you'll love learning about "Imaginary
| Colors" aka "Impossible colors":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_color?wprov=sfti1
|
| Also don't miss the Mantis Shrimp eyes:
|
| https://www.radiolab.org/podcast/211178-rip-rainbow
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp?wprov=sfti1
| bitwize wrote:
| Mantis shrimp eyes, it turns out, aren't as extraordinary
| as you might think. Yes, they have twelve different color
| receptors... which means they can see twelve different
| colors. Near as I can tell they can't integrate all the
| input from their compound eyes into a single, cohesive
| image. Rather, different sections of their visual system
| are tied directly to ganglia that recognize features or
| movement characteristic of predators, prey, or other mantis
| shrimp.[0]
|
| It really is the simplest possible visual system that could
| work for a mantis shrimp. It's like the first engineer from
| Do-While Jones's story about the breakfast food cooker[1]
| designed the mantis shrimp's visual system, and the second
| engineer from that story designed ours. (Of course as far
| as Do-While Jones is concerned, both animals had the same
| designer.)
|
| [0] https://ryanblakeley.net/p/mantis-shrimp-eyes
|
| [1] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.info/dwj/toaster.htm
| pjmlp wrote:
| We need to improve our understanding of parrot languages. :)
| eimrine wrote:
| Not language but rather physiology. Don't you sympathize the
| birds which are annoyed by our flickering displays?
| chimpanzee wrote:
| Why not language? We could then ask them how they feel
| rather than just assuming. People themselves usually prefer
| receiving informed, accurate sympathy rather than sympathy
| based on crude assumptions.
|
| And physiology alone seems unlikely to tell us how they
| "feel" about it.
|
| Perhaps they are so amazed by the technology that they
| couldn't care less about the flicker :)
| eimrine wrote:
| We can barely do this to apes (gorilla Koko and maybe few
| others).
|
| Best cognitive interaction what the best educated birds
| can perform is to count 2+3 verbally (some African grey
| parrot).
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| We've already jumped to assuming the birds are annoyed?
|
| What if it's more like using an old telephone or a black-
| and-white TV? A hindrance, but better than what came
| before?
| eimrine wrote:
| > We've already jumped to assuming the birds are annoyed?
|
| If our displays flicker to them, which is a highly
| probable, it is annoyance by any definition. It may be
| not annoying to spiders which have a tiny brain and live
| in a world of mechanical sense, but birds are smart and
| most of their brain is shaped for visual data.
|
| > A hindrance, but better than what came before?
|
| How can this statement be applied to birds? They neither
| expect nor desire all these technology and the only
| reason they are not scared of it is a professionalism of
| their caretakers.
| teapot7 wrote:
| > If our displays flicker to them, which is a highly
| probable, it is annoyance by any definition.
|
| Well, an annoyance by your definition. Not sure how you
| managed to declare it universal.
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| I don't disagree, but the trend is to teach parrots our
| language, with some degree of success [1].
|
| [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
| V__ wrote:
| Please, for the love of god, can this scroll-hijacking (or
| whatever it's called) trend just die already. Just give me a
| video I can scroll past or watch fluently instead.
|
| Besides that, I love paper titles which don't take themselves too
| seriously: Birds of a Feather Video-Flock Together
| qtzaz wrote:
| It looks pretty stupid when you scroll with a scroll wheel with
| smooth scrolling off. But I guess as long as it looks good
| using a macbook touchpad then the designer is happy.
| [deleted]
| lima wrote:
| Well-done parallax scrolling libraries do just fine with
| scroll wheels and no smoothing. This one just isn't very well
| done - I bet accessibility features don't work either.
| katrotz wrote:
| Had to refresh the page more than a couple times as I was not
| able to scroll passed the first "video" only to realize I have
| to keep scrolling to get to the article. I genuinely thought
| the website is broken
| bbarnett wrote:
| I would have liked sound, too. Mystified.
| ziftface wrote:
| Unpopular opinion but I didn't mind it on this site. Reading
| this on a phone it's like scrubbing through a video for part of
| the article. I usually agree it's annoying though.
| dang wrote:
| " _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--e.g.
| article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
| breakage. They're too common to be interesting._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| gcheong wrote:
| Parroulette?
| petercooper wrote:
| Birds see very differently to humans [0] and standard RGB
| displays aren't able to reproduce the full experience for them. I
| wonder if the results would be any different if we could produce
| something more realistic to them.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/parrots/comments/7itlyx/can_budgies...
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Budgies will try to socialize (in vane) with extremely
| unrealistic plastic budgies. Parrots actually recognize each
| other by voice, the colors of the feather doesn't matter hardly
| at all (maybe for mating...), we know that because certain
| species do have different colors in different breeds.
|
| I think RGB displays are fine for this particular purpose.
| yareally wrote:
| I don't have the context of the research you read, but I've
| seen my budgies try to socialize and play with all of the
| following in a similar fashion:
|
| - other budgies
|
| - my green cheek conure (who isn't sure what they're doing
| exactly, but still tries to humor them)
|
| - cuttlebones
|
| - my fingers and tip of my nose
|
| - my wife
|
| - various parts of their cage
|
| - toys
|
| Honestly, I think budgies are happy go lucky little birds
| that like to play with anything and everything
| KronisLV wrote:
| Got a cookie banner with the only option being "Accept", that
| covered most of the screen on mobile. Figured I'd actually follow
| the link to the "Privacy Statement", to learn what sort of dark
| pattern is used and how I could actually consume the content
| without opting in to the tracking. Once I got there, however, I
| got an even bigger banner that also had accepting whatever they
| want me to as the only option, to the point where I can't even
| read their statement.
|
| Commenting this because I've never actually had that happen
| before - accepting something being the only way to actually
| figure out what it is that I'm accepting. If it wasn't
| deliberate, it'd be quite the ridiculous UX failure. I actually
| recall some sites just telling me that users in EU aren't allowed
| to access their content, which somehow felt better because they
| were honest about it.
|
| Might need to look for a plugin for mobile Firefox to
| automatically set the correct preferences.
|
| Seems like the Web Archive copy has the same issue:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230422100711/https://news.nort...
| tempodox wrote:
| There's a reason stuff like that is called webshit.
| belter wrote:
| The UI was optimized for Parrots.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| They want you to install the "Google Analytics Opt-out Browser
| Add-on" provided by Google itself. Which is kinda pointless on
| iOS.
|
| Regarding the "you cannot view this content as EU citizen": I
| find it sad. I miss the old days of the web where it was a web.
| javajosh wrote:
| _> I miss the old days of the web where it was a web._
|
| Everything is a trade-off. A partitioned culture is worse for
| exchange, but this is good when there is a risk of memetic
| infection. I suspect the best case is a softly partitioned
| culture, with barriers surmountable by intellectuals with the
| time and energy to learn a new language, and also a rational
| immune system and the good sense not to bring contagions
| home, but which remains partitioned for most people.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| I cannot recall any occasion were I brought home a flu from
| visiting a page on the interwebs. Maybe you have a point
| with what you are saying, but I would not translate that to
| the internet.
| hiatus wrote:
| They are trying to say we are too stupid to be allowed to
| freely consume the internet and need someone to protect
| us from misinformation.
| javajosh wrote:
| And yet the arrogant position is to believe you know how
| human society works so well that you can say with
| confidence that obliterating a hundred thousand years of
| cultural isolation has no downside.
|
| The burden of proof is on the one who wants to change
| things, and the burden is higher the more you want to
| change things. In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we
| are on the brink of civil war, in part because of these
| effects, so I think they are worth questioning.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Things change naturally. There is no "burden of proof"
| unless you are making an argument to not allow things to
| naturally happen, whether that is to purposely change
| something or purposely keep it the same.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Things change naturally_
|
| That's a statement so empty as to not even exist.
|
| The worst attrocities and bad developments happened
| "naturally" too. Climate change also occured naturally
| (since in your use, naturally includes the acts of
| societies and people).
|
| We definitely should not allow things to just "naturally
| happen". We should steer things towards a better future,
| and be able to see which "naturally ocurring"
| developments are good, and which are bad.
| javajosh wrote:
| The term "natural" is basically meaningless here, and the
| rest of your comment implies that humans are incapable of
| saying "no" to change. The Amish, and Richard Stallman,
| are both counter-examples. _We don 't have to do
| anything_, and anything that arises we don't have to
| accept, promote, or integrate into our lives.
|
| We "naturally" made fluorocarbons, and then realized it
| was a bad idea and stopped.
|
| The notion that free and open informational borders is an
| unalloyed good has risen to the level of dogma for many
| in SV, and I think that's a naive mistake. Making bomb
| making material accessible to an unhappy teenage boy is a
| bad idea; letting professional manipulators "flood the
| zone with shit" to perform a coup in a democracy is a bad
| idea, too, and for similar reasons. Letting it happen to
| satisfy a dogmatic position is a good way to let your
| civilization die. And a dead civ has no positions.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| Alternatively, GP is suggesting these barriers are part
| of the "natural" change and can have their own positive
| effects. We can fight them if we wish, naturally, and
| doing so brings about a necessary balance. But we
| shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that we are
| necessarily "doing good" in relation to the other. And we
| shouldn't believe that achieving the extreme, the
| unbalanced, is necessarily "best".
|
| "Freedom-of-information fighters" are always simply
| fighting for a belief and a desire, not a truth. And in
| turn bringing balance or potentially imbalance depending
| on one's assumptions regarding "Mother Nature's Grand
| Evolutionary Scheme" or whatever we want to call it. Just
| as all fighters have been doing throughout time.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Every human decision is nature and natural.
| kortilla wrote:
| > In 2023 US democracy is falling apart, we are on the
| brink of civil war,
|
| Both of these statements are bullshit. People voted based
| on terrible information 50 years ago as well (a couple of
| TV appearances for the "informed voter").
|
| The political discourse is shitty again, but we aren't
| anywhere near a civil war. The discourse and violence
| back around the Vietnam war was far worse than anything
| today.
| rapnie wrote:
| https://archive.is/5EQSa
| ben_w wrote:
| Thanks :)
| doodlesdev wrote:
| Life pro tip: Disable JavaScript.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Yeah, NoScript can be kind of a pain but it's less annoying
| than all of the banners and popups that don't appear because
| it's effectively blocking them.
|
| Also, Reader mode helps a lot.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Disable JS. Refresh. Start reading.
| turtleyacht wrote:
| Thank-you. Disabling JS may help with reading many other pay-
| or other-walled submissions.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| It really can! The flipside is you tend to lose images but
| I'm okay with that. Good luck with your new-found
| kryptonite
| hkt wrote:
| I recommend consent-o-matic on desktop. It'll be good to see it
| appear on mobile, though I have my doubts that it'll appear
| soon since the entire ecosystem of plugins seems to have been
| hobbled on mobile.
|
| Regarding EU users not being allowed on certain websites..
| well, frankly, I'd rather they do that than have to deal with
| people who refuse to comply with a very simple legal
| requirement for user autonomy. It is a basic moral failure not
| to offer that autonomy, really.
| jerpint wrote:
| I was able to read privacy statement without cookie banner on
| iOS using brave browser
| andai wrote:
| I find the other archive produces more readable pages.
|
| This one still has the banner but it's glued to the end of the
| page.
|
| https://archive.ph/5EQSa
| echelon wrote:
| I just had an idea.
|
| I should call up my local privacy-contrarian legislators (I'm
| in a purple state) and ideate cookie banners as being a
| populist tool of the opposing party. And if that doesn't get
| them, as a tool for foreign powers to slow American tech
| startups and innovation. Bombastic take, but something you
| could plausibly sell.
|
| The hope would be to get our lawmakers to put forth legislation
| banning the use of cookie banners and popups on US websites
| entirely. That's a cross-cutting solution that would force
| websites to immediately remedy their frontends.
|
| If it ever came to pass, web operators would be doing a version
| of the "two buttons" meme wondering which jurisdiction to
| comply with. Hiring lawyers to determine if IP geolocation is a
| viable out, but how to respect EU residents abroad, etc.
| muyuu wrote:
| the entire website is unbearable
|
| shame on you Schuyler Velasco and northeastern.edu
| kibwen wrote:
| Click the Reader Mode icon in the URL bar to bypass this.
| FireInsight wrote:
| I'm using uBlock origin on mobile Firefox and was able to just
| hide the banner with the element picker.
| fdgjgbdfhgb wrote:
| It doesn't really solve the problem though, since continuing
| to use the site is the same as accepting the cookies
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Are you saying that the cookies are set _before_ the user
| clicks accept?
| yencabulator wrote:
| Here's a "remove sticky" bookmarklet that worked flawlessly:
| javascript:(function()%7B let i%2C elements %3D
| document.querySelectorAll('body *')%3B for (i %3D 0%3B i <
| elements.length%3B i%2B%2B) %7B
| if(getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D 'fixed'
| %7C%7C getComputedStyle(elements%5Bi%5D).position %3D%3D%3D
| 'sticky')%7B
| elements%5Bi%5D.parentNode.removeChild(elements%5Bi%5D)%3B %7D
| %7D %7D)()
| lathiat wrote:
| Formula 1 website (*on iOS/iPhone) has the same issue right now
| once you hit customise the literally 100s of options appear but
| the accept/reject/save appears for a microsecond and disappears
| as it loads. Hitting the X doesn't save.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| "Reader" view on Safari (Desktop) made all the bad go away.
|
| I set Safari to enable it by default on many, many sites now.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Does it automatically accept or decline consent or what?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| It just extracts text content covered by all the pop-ups
| and shows it with some readable styling applied.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Reader Mode on Chrome does the same thing
| Liberonostrud wrote:
| The website is terrible.
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| This is a great.
|
| But the article was totally ruined by trying to be clever and
| reinvent some basic interaction design principles.
|
| Just use a video to show what the parrots are doing rather than
| having to scroll down to advance to the next frame.
|
| At first I thought 'Why is the video not working?'
|
| Whoever the designer was... why?
|
| But yes - parrots (and other birds like corvids) are pretty
| amazing - how much intelligence is packed into such a small brain
| ;)
| onetokeoverthe wrote:
| [dead]
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| That is absolutely adorable. We need to start doing that for
| other pets. I want my dog to call up other dogs.
| t-3 wrote:
| I think dog vision is too bad, and their socialization too
| scent-based, to make such a thing practical. Howling is a
| thing, but as far as I know, is more of a "here I am" thing
| than having a chat.
| brokenkebaby wrote:
| Nevermind AI, parrots can take a bunch of jobs now!
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Seriously, if someone wired parrot up to ChatGPT-4 who knows
| what will happen.
| sannysanoff wrote:
| now get some footage of their communications, and let's finally
| put that to some unsupervised learning algorithm so it distills
| some patterns in their audio/visual communication and then builds
| parrot2vec. Then you perform clusterisation analysis, and obtain
| some characteristic patterns. At least we'll have the vocabulary
| size with some precision. The vocabulary of bored domestic
| animal, therefore reduced to some degree..
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| This site with the "scrolling videos" is fucking horrible.
| skinkestek wrote:
| As commented by everyone already, it is amazing how far they have
| gone here to ruin tye viewing experience.
| crooked-v wrote:
| A video with some (sadly pretty short) excerpts:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHcAOlamgDc
| misnome wrote:
| Short but lots of them, a good summary, thanks - much much
| better than TFA
| rwc wrote:
| Everybody's so worried about AI they forgot about the parrots!
| j45 wrote:
| This is the content I come for on HN
| rickcarlino wrote:
| On Firefox mobile, I don't even get a consent banner. The video
| just goes full screen and doesn't let me scroll anywhere so I
| can't read the article.
| lostlogin wrote:
| No, it's working. When you scroll the video plays. The article
| is below the 'video'
|
| I know Dang has warned about this topic, but this is a new
| horror for me. Apple does a similar thing with their new
| products and animations that move as you scroll, but this is
| next level.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| The New York Times had a good interactive on this [0] (non-
| paywalled[1]).
|
| [0]
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/21/science/parro...
|
| [1]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230421235932/https://www.nytim...
| drcongo wrote:
| Thank you, that's a _much_ better link.
| 2bitlobster wrote:
| Great UI. I thought originally the comments here about the UI
| were about the Times site. Ha! Seemed like a tough crowd!
| chclt wrote:
| Are these the statistical parrots everyone keeps talking about?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| First question in my mind was: How did they stop the parrots from
| destroying the devices? But the species they used is quite small,
| so...
| Buhljingo wrote:
| Generally curious, how do you measure: "the findings suggest that
| video calls can improve a pet parrot's quality of life."
| csomar wrote:
| From the look of his face, that parrot looks very happy.
| capableweb wrote:
| I think it's very hard to objectively measure and give it a
| concrete number, but anyone who have kept a pet (dog, cat,
| parrot, pig or otherwise) can usually tell if their companion
| is happy or not, as they have bunch of signals they give us
| throughout their lives. With dogs, you can usually tell by the
| ears if they're curious or defensive, while the tail tells you
| if they're happy.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > the tail tells you if they're happy.
|
| I like some of the other tail signals.
|
| Pointing - 'there is something in that hedge.'
|
| Confidence wag - 'I'm going to win this coming fight.'
|
| Scared/ashamed tuck - 'I'm sorry.'
|
| Zoomies tail tuck - 'look how fast I can corner.'
| markdown wrote:
| Parrots are very expressive, and if you live with one for
| months/years, you'll learn its moods. Not hard to see how a
| parrot responds to something new.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| They also have clear signs of depression (eg plucking their
| feathers). They are really amazing animals, but non trivial
| to keep as pets.
| sroussey wrote:
| I have three, and they are a lot of work. Assume a couple
| hours a day. We make toys for them every day. The noise,
| the mess, the neediness. It's a lot. They are a joy, but I
| don't really don't suggest others to get any.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| [flagged]
| curiousObject wrote:
| Would it be reasonable to re-title this to 'Scientists Teach
| Parrots to Push a Button'?
|
| I believe the parrots enjoy this experience but do the parrots
| understand that they are placing a video call?
| yyyk wrote:
| The interesting issue is not whether the parrots understand
| they are placing a video call, but rather if they understand
| they are interacting with another member of the species -
| apparently they do.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| https://archive.is/5EQSa
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Wait till the parrots get addicted to social media and start to
| develop mental illnesses.
| kleene_op wrote:
| I trust they are too smart to fall into such an obvious
| pitfall.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Many pet parrots are already mentally ill. It's not really kind
| to keep them in captivity.
| oulipo wrote:
| Am I the only one to find this sad? It just means parrots are not
| meant to be raised alone in homes. Pets should be outside, with
| their own pet friends
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Could say the same thing for people, I find remote work super
| isolating sometimes.
| layer8 wrote:
| The very concept of pets is unethical towards animals.
| quesera wrote:
| Some animals-turned-pets developed/evolved symbiotically with
| humans, and continued through selective breeding (inevitably,
| and with mixed virtue).
|
| The classic example is wild dogs to work dogs to pet dogs. I
| think this is healthy and remains symbiotic.
|
| And the classic example of excess is all the sad purebred
| dogs, developed by bad people to accentuate some aesthetic
| values with inadequate regard for the (sometimes life-long)
| pain and discomfort caused by side effects of the genetic
| selection.
|
| Agreed on birds though. They are pretty and entertaining, but
| how can it not be cruel to cage a bird?
|
| Do all those African Grays who amuse and seem to enjoy their
| humans really just suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?
|
| I don't know, but I don't trust that the humans have thought
| about it in a non self-serving way.
|
| And don't get me started on zoos... :(
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| The initial existence of pet and worker breeds may be
| symbiotic and natural, but the way people treat them like a
| slave species and perpetuate them is arbitrarily done for
| the convenience of humans.
|
| I can't stand when I see "my fur baby is lost!" when
| describing the escape of large adult social dog. No, that
| dog knows how to get home. It escaped its prison.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I get where you're coming from in the extreme, but
| animals do get lost or into situations they can't get out
| of. We took in two stray kittens as outdoor cats and we'd
| occasionally have to go around the neighborhood to find
| them because they'd be behind a wall in someone else's
| yard and forget how to make it back.
|
| As soon as they saw our faces over the wall they'd follow
| us to an opening or the gate and then find their way
| home.
|
| Ultimately, one of them met an untimely end from some
| stray dogs. But that's life.
| mlyle wrote:
| > I can't stand when I see "my fur baby is lost!" when
| describing the escape of large adult social dog. No, that
| dog knows how to get home. It escaped its prison.
|
| That dog may know how to get home initially and enjoys
| the freedom having slipped the leash and exploring. But
| there's no guarantee that when the dog decides it would
| like to get home that it can, nor is it making an
| informed decision about the risks that it faces.
| meken wrote:
| It really seems like a trade off. Animals seem "happy" and
| "free" out in nature, but are they?
|
| They have to be on guard every single second because
| something might eat them. If they get injured, that is an
| absolute death sentence. There is no safety net. They have to
| weather harsh weather conditions. They are at risk for being
| eaten alive and enduring a slow agonizing painful death by
| other animals that do not care one iota about their well-
| being
|
| At least in captivity they are safe. I don't see how we as
| humans are all that different in how most of us choose to
| live our lives
| yunohn wrote:
| This is a fundamentally misguided take.
|
| An equivalent comparison would be jailing all humans to
| keep them safe from each other. Humans having a home for
| occasional safety from environmental hazards is not the
| same as free-flying birds being caged in isolation forever.
| [deleted]
| swalling wrote:
| Say that to dogs, who have co-evolved with humans over
| thousands of years to a level that not only do they look
| completely different from wolves, but they can happily digest
| food that a wolf cannot.
|
| Dogs like to be with people. Even free-roaming street dogs
| will usually live in close proximity to people. A well-cared
| for household dog or cat is one of the most happy, pampered
| beings who ever lived, often cared for at a level akin to
| human children.
|
| Absolutist anti-pet thinking is how PETA ends up euthanizing
| 97% of the pets it receives at its shelter.
| layer8 wrote:
| My conviction comes from having owned a dog, and realizing
| after a couple of years that it will never have the life in
| a pack roaming the lands that it obviously craved
| ("obvious" after observing its behavior for long enough). I
| don't think a healthy co-evolution can be claimed when the
| animal is not free to act independently, i.e. without being
| coerced (like being taken on a leash or otherwise
| physically constrained). I'm more sympathetic to cats as
| pets, if they can come and go as they please.
| kortilla wrote:
| A dog that requires a leash or an active restraint to
| prevent it from running away is not representative of dog
| ownership in general. My dog has no interest in running
| away and the only time I have to use a leash is when it's
| imposed by local ordinance.
|
| If your dog wanted to run away it probably had a shitty
| life.
| bagels wrote:
| My nextdoor feed is filled with run away dogs. I think
| your experience might be slightly less common than you
| think.
| lostlogin wrote:
| For those as confused as I was, Nextdoor: some sort of
| social thing.
|
| Not a feedlot nextdoor to OP.
| kortilla wrote:
| Survivor bias. Your nextdoor feed doesn't have posts
| about the orders of magnitude more dogs that aren't
| running away.
| mlyle wrote:
| Different breeds, and different dogs within those breeds,
| have different drives.
|
| I know some well-trained dogs that will still gleefully
| run away and explore the woods if given the chance... and
| then return sheepishly 20-30 minutes later. If they ever
| do get lost, or someone else "finds" them, etc, it'll be
| a tragedy.
|
| They also tend to come back covered in thorns, with cut-
| up paws, etc, etc.
| swalling wrote:
| Your conclusion may have been correct about _your_ dog,
| but extending that to all dogs is pretty large and
| ridiculous leap. Dogs view their people as family members
| (which is what a pack is), and many other people's dogs
| get to have a healthy group of dog friends as well. You
| sound like a person who just failed to keep a happy dog
| and developed a rationalization that all dog ownership is
| morally wrong.
|
| Dog domestication is generally thought to be an example
| of commensalism, and potentially mutualism. https://www.f
| rontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.6623... In
| other words, it only happened in the first place because
| a group of wolves benefited from association with people.
| Pleistocene hunter-gatherers did not have the physical
| ability to force a grown wolf to be captive if it did not
| want to be.
| moralestapia wrote:
| I'm on this boat as well.
|
| Keeping other life captive for your own sporadic amusement is
| pathologically self-centered.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Adopting injured animals sometimes leaves them dependent.
| We have an aviary of deceive pigeons. They each have a
| different issue. Is letting them die kinder?
|
| I'd say that it is sometimes, but it gets complicated fast.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Maybe we should ask the pets about that, instead drawing
| random lines in the sand that feel just like parroted BS
|
| Do chicken feel that being the most successful bird in the
| planet is unfair?
| garblegarble wrote:
| Yeah, the whole idea of keeping birds seems painfully sad to me
| - taking creatures that have this amazing power of natural
| flight, with agency to explore vast landscapes and see amazing
| things, and then keeping them inside (and/or sometimes with
| clipped wings).
|
| And added to that how difficult it can be for long-lived birds
| when their caretakers die and they can be left with somebody
| who doesn't really like them (or whom they don't really like),
| or donated to a zoo... a family friend's parrot was given to a
| (very good) butterfly house when she died and he just seems so
| sad every time I see him now
|
| Maybe I'm just being narrow-minded, and the exact same thing is
| true for dogs & cats
| nopassrecover wrote:
| Do you feel differently about fish who can swim?
| eimrine wrote:
| No fish is so intelligent as the simplest bird.
| pvaldes wrote:
| I would not bet my money on it. In some areas fishes can
| score higher than many other vertebrates for sure,
| including big apes
|
| Anybody keeping an aquarium knows that many fishes are
| surprisingly smart. Specially predatory fishes. They have
| a good long term memory and can recognize individual
| caretaker humans.
|
| The brain/bodyweight ratio of some species is bigger than
| humans. This mean that they have a bigger brain that most
| birds, lizards and rodents of the same size. Sharks are
| pretty clever for example.
| garblegarble wrote:
| A very good question - I do feel differently about fish,
| and I think it's the relative level of intelligence.
|
| As you suggest, it's clearly not just because birds have an
| ability to explore an environment natively that humans
| don't.
|
| I'm sure that's a bias towards similarities with human
| intelligence - to communicate, solve puzzles, and use tools
| (e.g. crows and parrots) because it would be very sad if
| people were regularly keeping octopuses in home fish tanks.
| skinkestek wrote:
| For those like me who thought clipped wings meant exactly
| that, at least from what I have learned it usually just means
| removing 1 or 2 large feathers at the wing tips, not
| amputating an actual part of the wing.
|
| Maybe this is obvious to everyone else but for me this thing
| seemed way worse than it actually was.
| MandieD wrote:
| For some pet parrots, yes, flight feathers are trimmed as
| they come in to temporarily prevent or reduce flight, but
| traditionally, ducks and geese being raised for meat and
| feathers do have part of the outside wing joint removed to
| permanently prevent flight - this is called pinioning.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| At least they won't be hungry, getting fed more than they
| would eat on their own [0]. That seems to be called
| gavage.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-feeding
| garblegarble wrote:
| While that's good to hear, what disturbs me about clipping
| wings is robbing a bird of their ability to fly
| yareally wrote:
| As long as they're not fully clipped, they can still fly,
| but they don't get a ton of lift. Parrot owners typically
| do it so they don't accidentally fly outside and end up
| in a worse situation than a few clipped feathers that
| grow back in a few months. Birds get spooked by the most
| random things, so it's hard to know what will trigger
| them to fly into danger
|
| Fully clipping their flight feathers is cruel, dangerous
| and can result in injury when a bird falls more than a
| few feet. Also causes muscle atrophy and makes the birds
| dependant on their humans
| xeonmc wrote:
| It's why the symbolism of caged birds is a recurrent literary
| device for a long as the history of literature.
| sebiandev wrote:
| Domestic cats are another story. Mine actually prefers inside
| and is not very social even with other cats. Prefers
| solitude, sleep, cuddles and eating. My dog, on the other
| hand, a 70lb Husky mix requires a great deal of activity
| outside as well as socialization with his pack of friends
| from the dog park. 2+ hours of physical activity and
| socialization a day keeps him happy but, you have to be a
| responsible pet owner, listen to your pets and give them
| everything they need and more. Your pet shouldn't just be
| surviving, they should be thriving. It's your responsibility.
| [deleted]
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| They're not "pets", they're "animals". And social function is
| one of their primary instincts.
|
| But as long as we force them to be pets, they're in fact meant
| to be raised alone in homes. And they compensate for it by
| bonding with their owners, which are away most of the time.
|
| It's casually cruel, but also I don't think there's such a
| construct as "pets outside with pet friends". Ideally we'd just
| let nature handle itself and we stop trying to productize it as
| home decoration & entertainment.
| locustous wrote:
| We have several birds, they mostly like the company of other
| some other birds. But they really like people too. Even the
| ones always raised around birds grow attached to their
| people.
|
| It's much more complex than "leave animals to the wild". One
| of our birds is a rescue and had found himself a new family
| when he had gotten loose. He clearly prefers people over
| birds, every time. Even with a wide selection.
|
| Clearly if you are not home most of the time - don't get
| birds. But if you are, they are quite good companions if you
| are also up for their care. And don't mind losing the
| occasional keyboard to fun time...
|
| They tend to be quite happy when they have some even small
| space to fly and extensive contact with both their people and
| others birds. I'll often have two on me while coding, by
| their choice. The others have other preferences for time use.
|
| When they get out, and it's happened a few times. They very
| much prefer to be back in their home with their clearly loved
| social circle.
|
| Flying is nice, it's fun and good exercise, but it's also a
| means to an end. Being with those they love, finding food,
| toys, and nesting sites.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Do you have any durable evidence to back up those
| anecdotes?
| locustous wrote:
| My best summary from years of experience and observations
| and learning from several birds. Learning to read their
| likes and dislikes. Also exposure to others who do the
| same, bird people.
|
| It is what it is, whatever you may choose to call it. You
| may also take it or leave it.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| The preference of people over birds is not a good sign.
| Usually means he wasn't well socialized or even
| misimprinted. Breeders do that intentionally because people
| want people-focused parrots. But it's not good for them.
|
| Sometimes that damage can be undone with very careful
| training and resocializing...
|
| I don't think interaction with people is bad for parrots,
| but it shouldn't be their only means of scratching their
| social itches.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > The preference of people over birds is not a good sign.
| Usually means he wasn't well socialized or even
| misimprinted. Breeders do that intentionally because
| people want people-focused parrots. But it's not good for
| them.
|
| How are you deciding what is "good" for a parrot?
|
| A preference for humans is certainly not _natural_ for a
| parrot. However, I don 't think there's anything natural
| about the way most humans live _their_ lives, and I quite
| like modern technology. Perhaps parrots similarly
| appreciate being in a safe environment with loving
| caretakers. (Or perhaps they don 't--but I don't see how
| we could know either way.)
|
| Put another way, I'm not convinced that living in the
| wilderness and having to scrounge for food and avoid
| predators is necessarily a better life than living with a
| loving human who cares for you. Both are certainly
| imperfect in different ways, but unfortunately we can't
| ask the parrots which one they would prefer.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Those comparisons are meaningless, because this bird is
| living in Human care through Human decisions (at some
| point...).
|
| What is less meaningless is the idea that animals should
| be able to fulfill the full spectrum of their natural
| behavior. For parrots that means conspecific company.
| People don't talk like parrots and don't act like
| parrots. That is consensus among experts, by the way.
| locustous wrote:
| Don't know his history. He is clearly old. He doesn't
| mind other birds, but he loves and takes great delight in
| people. Just who he is.
|
| Sure, there's history there. But I don't see it as
| "damage". He is clearly quite happy when he is with his
| people.
|
| His other great delight is figuring out how to open his
| palace in the morning to get out early. Every time he
| manages it he struts around for quite a while looking
| like he just won the Superbowl.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'm not saying these birds can't be happy. Some certainly
| aren't resocializeable, and there's nothing wrong with
| keeping them as happy as possible regardless.
|
| One of the most objective criterion for animal welfare is
| how much of their natural behavior they can fulfill.
| People don't talk like birds, don't act like birds. Only
| parrots of pretty much the same species can fulfill some
| things. I'm not even talking about mating and all the
| behavior around that, more like everything else.
| Micoloth wrote:
| Once again, The Onion news was just 10 years too early
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJkWS4t4l0k
|
| (Sorry low effort comment but I couldn't resist)
| yareally wrote:
| It's actually illegal to import parrots into the United States
| now. Nearly all the ones that are here are not going to live
| out in the wild and survive. I see this discussion about
| freeing them all the time, but that ship sailed when they were
| taken from their habitat and bred in capitivity. Best we can do
| is minimize the damage by dissuading ownership and reduce the
| number bred for pets
|
| That said, I dissuade everyone that tells me they want a parrot
| from getting one, not for the reason you gave, but because most
| people treat them like cats or dogs and that doesn't work.
| They're more like toddlers and approaching them like that
| usually works better.
|
| I have several smaller parrots I rescued from someone that let
| them go outside and didn't want them back (conure and some
| budgies) and they're quite content. They're usually more
| interested in interacting with my family than each other. I
| love mine, but they require more attention than most people
| want to give
|
| They get plenty of open space indoors to fly around, but not
| every parrot likes to fly. Quite a few would rather climb,
| because it's a lot of effort to get lift with a bulky parrot
| body.
| Reptur wrote:
| I can't help but think of course video calls would help a
| social animal that is solitary except for their human owner and
| maybe another species of pet. Someday I hope we will rethink
| how we live with animals and give them the compassion and
| habitat that we would want for ourselves if we were in their
| position. I would much prefer to visit a wonderful parrot
| habitat I help conserve where I can view happy flourishing
| parrots in the wild then own one and potentially give it
| Zoochosis.
| lusus_naturae wrote:
| It is sad. Mainly our approach to other animals is based on
| disregarding their right to self actualization. Merely saying
| this makes one seem like a kook or zealot. But it's just
| pointing out that taking a human-centric approach to other
| intelligent organisms is easy to do because we are the apex
| predator. I don't blame or judge anyone but it disturbs me all
| the same. A thought experiment I really like is how I would
| feel about doing something if I wasn't part of a group of apex
| predators. It's simplistic, but personally I find it provides
| clarity.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Wait til we teach parrots to deny prior authorizations and
| insurance claims.
|
| Seriously though, parrot (and corvid) behavior is fascinating.
| There's a known relationship between primate brain size and the
| size of social groups. These birds are typically social creatures
| too. It's kind of amazing what they manage with relatively small
| brains.
| xeonmc wrote:
| I guess bird brains are on 3nm while primates are 130nm
| realo wrote:
| Very much so:
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bird-brains-
| have-...
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Remember where they came from: Dinosaurs.
|
| In fact, I have been told that calling birds "dinosaurs,"
| is actually accurate. The lineage is pretty much a straight
| line.
|
| It also makes me wonder what it must have been like, back
| then. A lot of speculation is that dinosaurs (especially
| theropods) were extremely smart.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| That's right. Just like current macOS is not "Unix-like"
| or a descendant of Unix, but an actual Unix operating
| system, modern birds are actual dinosaurs.
|
| Wikipedia quote: Birds are feathered theropod dinosaurs
| and constitute the only known living dinosaurs.
| katherin_231 wrote:
| [dead]
| coldtea wrote:
| > _A few significant findings emerged. The birds engaged in most
| calls for the maximum allowed time. They formed strong
| preferences--in the preliminary pilot study, Cunha's bird Ellie,
| a Goffin's cockatoo, became fast friends with a California-based
| African grey named Cookie. "It's been over a year and they still
| talk," Cunha says._
|
| It would be fun if they get some of the birds to actually meet
| the birds on the other side!
| greyface- wrote:
| The paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3544548.3581166
| snitzr wrote:
| Twitter for real
| 77pt77 wrote:
| But with video.
| djaouen wrote:
| I am sure the parrots get a lot of value out of this lol
| Mave83 wrote:
| Horrible Website, who likes this sh*
| dang wrote:
| All: I know the website is annoying but please follow the HN
| guideline which asks commenters not to post about annoying
| websites: " _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--
| e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
| breakage. They're too common to be interesting._" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| The reason is that otherwise we get a thread full of comments
| about website annoyances--which is even more annoying. There's no
| good solution here but let's at least work on a local optimum.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-22 23:00 UTC)