Slashdot Mirror


Robot Makes Scientific Discovery (Mostly) On Its Own

Hugh Pickens writes "A science-savvy robot called Adam has successfully developed and tested its first scientific hypothesis, discovering that certain genes in baker's yeast code for specific enzymes which encourage biochemical reactions in yeast, then ran an experiment with its lab hardware to test its predictions, and analyzed the results, all without human intervention. Adam was equipped with a database on genes that are known to be present in bacteria, mice and people, so it knew roughly where it should search in the genetic material for the lysine gene in baker's yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Ross King, a computer scientist and biologist at Aberystwyth University, first created a computer that could generate hypotheses and perform experiments five years ago. 'This is one of the first systems to get [artificial intelligence] to try and control laboratory automation,' King says. '[Current robots] tend to do one thing or a sequence of things. The complexity of Adam is that it has cycles.' Adam has cost roughly $1 million to develop and the software that drives Adam's thought process sits on three computers, allowing Adam to investigate a thousand experiments a day and still keep track of all the results better than humans can. King's group has also created another robot scientist called Eve dedicated to screening chemical compounds for new pharmaceutical drugs that could combat diseases such as malaria.

33 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Please, fellow slashdotters... by Toonol · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I ever do cutting edge research on robot AI, please punch me if I try to name my new robots "Adam" or "Eve".

    1. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd shoot you if you named it Skynet.

    2. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, "Caine" is programmed to develop innovative interpersonal strategies autonomously. Nothing to worry about.

    3. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by Anthony_Cargile · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd shoot you if you named it Skynet.

      I was waiting for that. Second comment from the top, we've achieved a new level of predictability.

    4. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by RuBLed · · Score: 4, Funny

      The third robot would be aptly named Bob

    5. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope they don't put it to a vote or it will be called Colbert

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    6. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What? What about Steve, Adam's husband?

    7. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by memeplex · · Score: 1, Funny

      Joshua, what are you doing?

    8. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd shoot you if you named it Skynet.

      I was waiting for that. Second comment from the top, we've achieved a new level of predictability.

      Okay, good. That means my /. AI is nearing perfection. I think I'll call it KDawson.

    9. Re:Please, fellow slashdotters... by smallfries · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ah, so you're applying for a grant to research Artificial Stupidity?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. Call me when by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... it starts experimenting with inter-dimensional portal guns.

    1. Re:Call me when by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Call me when it begins faking results to get published.

  3. Time for... by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    the union of scientists. You thought Teamsters were nasty? You ain't seen jack squat. WE SPLICE GENES!!! WE SPLIT ATOMS!!! WE (probably) MAKE BLACKHOLES!!!

    Ross King, gutless traitor, you and your tin cans, your names will live in infamy.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  4. But... by tsotha · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, sure, it's neat-o. But you could probably afford hundreds of grad students to do the work for the same price.

    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's nothing, you could probably get some hobos to do the work for free and save some money by having them eat the hazardous biological waste rather than disposing of it.

    2. Re:But... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but there are no ethical rules against watching your two lab robots fuck each other.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:But... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will we one day see a scientific institution operated solely on robots?

      Depends on how heavy the institution is, and how strong the robots are, of course...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    4. Re:But... by Logic+Worshipper · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you're a Windows system admin, you get paid to watch computers fuck eachother.

    5. Re:But... by derGoldstein · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're also promoting unsafe sex, what with the viruses and all...

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  5. Re:Robot discovers Humans "unnecessary"... by anagama · · Score: 3, Funny

    No kidding. Let's get Ron Moore to pilot it and himself into the sun.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  6. Gender bender by Mr_Icon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The complexity of Adam is that it has cycles.

    No, no, no -- the complexity of *Eve* is that it has cycles.

    --
    If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
  7. Bender would say... by Eil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, we're boned.

  8. Re:Robot discovers Humans "unnecessary"... by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What if it concludes that humans are genetically inefficient and decides to replace them with a specie designed by itself?

    Humans replaced by coins? Now that is a dystopian future that even Philip K. Dick never considered.

    May God have mercy on us.

  9. The first step to a singularity? by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't the first requirement for a singularity be that it's able to improve itself, thus leading to an accelerating growth that ends in the subjugation of humanity? If so, wouldn't it be prudent to withhold knowledge of the scientific method as long as possible?

    1. Re:The first step to a singularity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why? So it can feel bad after it's killed us all?

  10. Re:Robot discovers Humans "unnecessary"... by andy.ruddock · · Score: 4, Funny

    We could always build them with OFF switches as well.

    --
    God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
  11. No apples... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Plus they are strictly forbidden to touch genes of apples...
    Nothing to worry..

  12. Re:You should see its Mitochondrial Eve test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    > Robots named Adam and Eve?

    I thought they were called Baltar and Caprica 6.

  13. Lysine? by Anenome · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, our future AI overlords begin their research with the Lysine Contingency? Should we be worried?

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    1. Re:Lysine? by juhaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, our future AI overlords begin their research with the Lysine Contingency? Should we be worried?

      Of course we should. Next thing you know, they'll be cloning dinosaur shock troops.

  14. so after all this grad school... by onionlee · · Score: 2, Funny

    damn! i got this phd for nothing now! D:

  15. Re:Throwing darts by kkrajewski · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our infinite Shakespearian typewriter-monkey overlords.

  16. Car analogies by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1, Funny
    The BBC news article about this breaks new ground by including not one, but two car-based analogies, both of which fail to reach the (admittedly high) benchmark of bad analogies set here on Slashdot.

    The robot was able to work out the role of the genes by observing yeast cells as they grew. It used existing information about the function of known genes to make predictions about the role an unknown gene might play in the cell's growth. It then tested this by looking at a strain of yeast from which that gene had been removed. "It's like a car," Professor King said. "If you remove one component from the engine, then drive the car to see how it performs, you can find out what that particular component does."

    and later,

    "If you spent all of the money we've spent on Adam on employing human biologists, Adam probably wouldn't turn out to be the cost-effective option," he said. "But that was the case with the first car. Initially, the investment in the technology wasn't as cost-effective as sticking with horses."

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com