Human beings one step closer to extinction!

My sister did biochemistry, she's going for her masters because if she only had her bachelors, she'd be doing what that robot is doing. It's just repetive tasks that are monotonous, and as my sister says "a monkey can do it". Then the data is taken by the people with master degrees and they analyse it (they also decide the tests).

So to say the robot discovered something scientific is a stretch. The robot did the mundane tasks that led to the discovery is more accurate.

I wouldn't call john connor just yet. ;)
 
Jon Starr said:
My sister did biochemistry, she's going for her masters because if she only had her bachelors, she'd be doing what that robot is doing. It's just repetive tasks that are monotonous, and as my sister says "a monkey can do it". Then the data is taken by the people with master degrees and they analyse it (they also decide the tests).

So to say the robot discovered something scientific is a stretch. The robot did the mundane tasks that led to the discovery is more accurate.

I wouldn't call john connor just yet. ;)
Click to expand...

This is the sentence that intrigued me--

"It has already identified the role of several genes in yeast cells, and is able to plan further experiments to test its own hypotheses"

When machines starting testing their own hypotheses is when I start to worry.
 
It is probably programmed with a complex, but defined protocol for that. If you simplify it, it could be some thing like testing tensile strength:

Pull rope at 100 foot pounds.
If rope breaks, rate at lower strength.
If rope holds, increase to 200 foot pounds.
Pull rope at 200 pounds.
Etc

The second test at a higher weight is a second experiment.

I am sure that what it is doing is far more complex than that, but odds are it isn't doing anything it is not specifically told to do.
 
Jim is right, it's probably just modifying some data to furthur the test rather than have someone manually change the test for the machine.

It's not using any AI system, just a protocol thingy (not a tech guy)
 
Science writers, (along with tech vendors) have been hyping this kind of crap for decades. The horizon keeps pushing out about the same, (in ten or twenty years we'll have.... fill in the B.S. here!)

Well more than three decades have passed and we're not much farther along except of course the year 2001 has come and gone. Where's HAL or the flying cars they promised? or any of the other things that were supposed to occur by the turn of the century?
 
There are some pretty cool developments in robotics. NASA isn't ready to field test robot astronauts yet, but the prototype they have so far as pretty nice. Eventually we'll be sending out colonies of robots to prepare places before humans get there. Until the robots realize they don't need us and rebel, of course, which we'll have taught them to do by heroes in our own history.

Also, it's nice for the guy who gets to have a robot now, but they could have hired a human to do it for a lot less than building the robot cost.
 
Batutta said:
Paging John Connor--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7979113.stm
Click to expand...

lol this kinda makes me laugh real hard, my entire Master Degree (advance computer science) was based on developing Neural Networks (AI) which I succesfully did,

but I can confidentently say AI is no where near as "Intelligent" in any word of the sense
as this article may suggest.

Nay the real intelligence lies at the hands of the programmer(s) behind all the code.

Jim Brennan is fairly close; even GA algo's are still stupid!


lol, its a case of journalist gloss to make nice stories...

Anhar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top