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.
'[Current robots] tend to do one thing or a sequence of things. The complexity of Adam is that it has cycles.'
I think this is called "flow control". This was invented before electricity. It was around before the term "science" existed.
So this is the first time it's applied to *this specific* operation. It's been around in robotics ever since there were "robots".
Here's a good example.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
"in exchange for dealing with the inexperience of the average undergrad."
THAT Sr. is an expensive proposition.
See, what people fail to see is this requires not only Strong AI but also a programmed Malicious intent.
People keep assuming that if we build a robot that can emulate some of our thought, it will emulate our motives also
Since we program it, it will only emulate the motives we give it. Emulating motives that are abstract enough to eventually lead back to our demise are quite complex
This is terrible.
No experimenter bias to worry about.
Programmable for effective randomization.
Truly double blind capable.
Can counteract the Placebo effect.
No ego to bruise.
It's the end of science as we know it.
I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD