"For the FT pieces quotes the researchers saying that Adam actually discovered an unknown fact about DNA sequencing in yeast".
I would not say 'discovered'. I think it is more 'calculated' based on all other data put in it. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: imago Asthetik <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Thinking machines and thinking Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:54:00 -0400 The FT article notes that the researchers are publishing a paper in Nature. The FT article also notes that Adam is a prototype, a first generation machine, which will not supplant human researchers, but help streamline research itself. Moreover, the FT article also makes a point of explaining what, exactly Adam did -- produced a hypothesis, developed an experimental methodology, and carried out an experiment. So it is in fact a big deal. Perhaps you should have read the article, Cheerskep, before commenting on it. For the FT pieces quotes the researchers saying that Adam actually discovered an unknown fact about DNA sequencing in yeast. On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 4/4/09 3:25:14 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > Here's a remarkable statement: > > > > "A laboratory robot called Adam has been hailed as the first machine > > in history to have discovered new scientific knowledge independently > > of its human creators." > > > > Story at: > > > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f2b97d9a-1f96-11de-a7a5-00144feabdc0.html > > > > Imagine what this portends for such things as aesthetic judgment, > > perceptions and taste. > > > > Not much, say I. Notice the piece was in the Financial Times, not Nature > or > a > philosophical journal. > > Consider: Computers have have generated prime numbers far bigger than any > human ever did. Would we cry with shock and awe, "My God, the machine is > DISCOVERING things a man never could. > > I's a sure thing the Robot in the FT story came up with lots of data that > was > already known -- and the Robot, because it had received incomplete input, > would never "know" the difference. It just mechanically ground out > mechanical > implications. > > The nearest comparison is chess-playing computers. My chess-experts friends > tell me they have damn near ruined the game. But the computer is programmed > with a decision-procedure for "recognizing" when a game is over, won. I do > not > believe anyone will write a program that will distinguish future, > unprecedented > arrangements -- of words, paint, musical notes, dance moves -- into those > that are aesthetically pleasing and those that aren't. That last phrase of > mine > may well draw a rapid orison of fire from listers -- which I think only > supports my point. > > > > > ************** > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a > recession. > ( > http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003 > ) ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find the perfect picture with our powerful photo search features. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYR2bnBkDwlKT8yZbN91i2ec7 zkUxQNdLA7kjXxLvGiRsj5imHe6mk/
