Does that mean the ants were unable to communicate the upcoming danger to each other and had to rely on first-hand observation? That's surprising given how much they communicate otherwise.
One ant wandered to the good area and checked it all out. She then marched back to the others, and bodily lifted another and took her to the good area. They both inspected the area and each repeated the trek to pull in another ant. This continued until "enough" ants were in the new area and they shifted into "build a nest" mode.
It felt very oversimplified for TV viewers, but nonetheless was fascinating - a breakdown of just HOW some simple models can lead to more complex emergent behavior. I just tried to find this video without success (on the bright side, there are a ton of OTHER fascinating ant videos out there)
Humans can communicate with each other and yet they behave surprisingly similar to those ants and maybe also often need first-hand observation.
...I'll show myself out
This way rogue ants can't destroy the colony without having 51% consensus on where to move the queen.
"Worker bees can leave.
Even drones can fly away.
The Queen is their slave."
This is of course a fallacy as "Joe" the protagonist winds up shooting himself and ends up in a mental hospital. We aren't supposed to sympathise with that notion.
Workers move queen ant
Seem to be returning promising videos
Again on train on broken phone, haven’t watched this but it takes you into the YouTube space of ant keepers
* It is meaningful to speak of animals having "opinions" but it's not clear how those match up with human ones.
* Individual opinion is guided by a combination of random chance and direct perception.
* Individual bee opinions have low success rate, but group consensus of bees has an extremely high success rate.
* Opinions acquired via transmission are more weakly held than opinions acquired directly.
* Wrong opinions are held more weakly than right opinions. I find this fascinating because it means there's some information that would not be revealed without the bees challenging each other.
* Opinions are often never changed in an individual, even if they are wrong.
This seems to be an emergent effect of a system where every individual scout explicitly communicates a degree of confidence, and the rest of the system can trust the degree of confidence expressed by its individuals so that noise in the actual signal (a scout bee mis-evaluating the quality of a potential home) can be smoothed out a larger number of inputs.
That sounds a lot like the one-armed bandit for A/B testing!
That's an interesting comparison to modern human society, where you can't at all trust how confident someone sounds, because everyone has learned to game that system.
What happens if a bee is late coming back and everyone is gone?
It's much worse when a beekeeper takes the swarm tho. Speaking from experience, you can see "lost" scouts going to and from the temporary cluster from their destinations for days after you moved the cluster into a new hive. The reason is because there's noone going from cluster to new hive since no scout found that destination. It's a bit heartbreaking.
I collected the "leftover" mini-clusters 4 times in a row coz I felt responsible...