re: iPlant driven collaborative research
0 views
Skip to first unread message
psique
Mar 10, 2008, 7:29:22 PM3/10/08
to iPlant
this is just a thought i had over the last couple of days. no biggie
though. if you don't know what i'm referring to, it's <a href="http://
www.iplant.eu/a5.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/
a3-0002.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></
a>.
yes, iPlant driven research. in his fiction, chris explores
microarrays and antibody optimization. fair enough - however, i read
<a href="http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/J/JAPAN_ROBOT_NATION?
SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-02-07-26-01"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">this article</span></a>
the other day and it made me think that by the time iPlant given
research can actually take place (given the vatican doesn't denounce
it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/
idUSL109602320080310?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">a sin</span></a>), robots will
probably be widespread in biological research. i would really like to
see a big pharma lab sometime soon, just to know how "high-throughput"
their labs are... anywsay, i digress. my point is that what we might
think iPlant driven lay people could do in terms of research can
probably be done by computers in 20-30 years time (i reserve to keep
my own time frame of the iPlant's development). i.e. we need to think
about what CAN'T be done by a robot or computer in 20-30 years time -
what will be left for humans to do? in my opinion only those things
that your average iplanted joe won't be able to do unless we focus on
a scientifically orientated education. in other words, if you want to
be eligble to participate in iPlant driven research in 20 years,
you're gonna have to be smarter than AI - you'll need an IQ of 110 or
above, a steady hand, good IT skills, the ability to come to
conclusions whilst skipping steps, imagination and creativity, a
knowledge of maths and stats - otherwise, no one's gonna give a shit
whether you've got 20000 willing iPlant 'junkies' willing to do
research for the greater good - because robots will have already taken
over the research-technician domain. i think we need to seriously
consider what kinds of tasks laypeople could perform in iPlant driven
research. i think it's actually gonna be tricky unless everyone who to
devote some of their time aims for a BSc degree first (not that it
takes skills to get one but still).
though. if you don't know what i'm referring to, it's <a href="http://
www.iplant.eu/a5.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/
a3-0002.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></
a>.
yes, iPlant driven research. in his fiction, chris explores
microarrays and antibody optimization. fair enough - however, i read
<a href="http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/J/JAPAN_ROBOT_NATION?
SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-02-07-26-01"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">this article</span></a>
the other day and it made me think that by the time iPlant given
research can actually take place (given the vatican doesn't denounce
it <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/
idUSL109602320080310?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews"><span
style="text-decoration: underline;">a sin</span></a>), robots will
probably be widespread in biological research. i would really like to
see a big pharma lab sometime soon, just to know how "high-throughput"
their labs are... anywsay, i digress. my point is that what we might
think iPlant driven lay people could do in terms of research can
probably be done by computers in 20-30 years time (i reserve to keep
my own time frame of the iPlant's development). i.e. we need to think
about what CAN'T be done by a robot or computer in 20-30 years time -
what will be left for humans to do? in my opinion only those things
that your average iplanted joe won't be able to do unless we focus on
a scientifically orientated education. in other words, if you want to
be eligble to participate in iPlant driven research in 20 years,
you're gonna have to be smarter than AI - you'll need an IQ of 110 or
above, a steady hand, good IT skills, the ability to come to
conclusions whilst skipping steps, imagination and creativity, a
knowledge of maths and stats - otherwise, no one's gonna give a shit
whether you've got 20000 willing iPlant 'junkies' willing to do
research for the greater good - because robots will have already taken
over the research-technician domain. i think we need to seriously
consider what kinds of tasks laypeople could perform in iPlant driven
research. i think it's actually gonna be tricky unless everyone who to
devote some of their time aims for a BSc degree first (not that it
takes skills to get one but still).
psique
Mar 10, 2008, 7:33:50 PM3/10/08
to iPlant
excuse the whole bunch of spelling mistakes and messy linking - it's
late and i don't know my html.
On 10 Mrz., 23:29, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> this is just a thought i had over the last couple of days. no biggie
> though. if you don't know what i'm referring to, it's <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/a5.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/
late and i don't know my html.
On 10 Mrz., 23:29, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> this is just a thought i had over the last couple of days. no biggie
Christopher
Mar 11, 2008, 2:03:26 PM3/11/08
to iPlant
the vicious question of the extent to which a human being can be
simulated or replaced by a digital computer..
some transhumanists will tell you that a human being is reducible to
100 billion nodes and their interconnections, and that minds can be
thus 'uploaded' onto computers with immortality and whatnot as a
bonus. some transhumanists are full of shit.
i think we are organic and computers are not. we are creative, we
want, we speak, we feel, we are billion years of complexity. the need
for human scientists (skilled and unskilled) has increased with the
rise of computers and i don't think that trend is about to change.
whatever it is that makes us special, they help bring it out of us. i
have no idea what role humans will play in science in 2040, but human-
based computation might be a field to keep an eye on (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-based_computation).
maybe i'm being too optimistic here.
On Mar 10, 11:33 pm, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> excuse the whole bunch of spelling mistakes and messy linking - it's
> late and i don't know my html.
>
> On 10 Mrz., 23:29, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > this is just a thought i had over the last couple of days. no biggie
> > though. if you don't know what i'm referring to, it's <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/a5.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/
> > a3-0002.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></
> > a>.
>
> > yes, iPlant driven research. in his fiction, chris explores
> > microarrays and antibody optimization. fair enough - however, i read
> > <a href="http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/J/JAPAN_ROBOT_NATION?
> > SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-02-07-26-01"><span
> > takes skills to get one but still).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
simulated or replaced by a digital computer..
some transhumanists will tell you that a human being is reducible to
100 billion nodes and their interconnections, and that minds can be
thus 'uploaded' onto computers with immortality and whatnot as a
bonus. some transhumanists are full of shit.
i think we are organic and computers are not. we are creative, we
want, we speak, we feel, we are billion years of complexity. the need
for human scientists (skilled and unskilled) has increased with the
rise of computers and i don't think that trend is about to change.
whatever it is that makes us special, they help bring it out of us. i
have no idea what role humans will play in science in 2040, but human-
based computation might be a field to keep an eye on (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-based_computation).
maybe i'm being too optimistic here.
On Mar 10, 11:33 pm, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> excuse the whole bunch of spelling mistakes and messy linking - it's
> late and i don't know my html.
>
> On 10 Mrz., 23:29, psique <l.kilar...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > this is just a thought i had over the last couple of days. no biggie
> > though. if you don't know what i'm referring to, it's <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/a5.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.iplant.eu/
> > a3-0002.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></
> > a>.
>
> > yes, iPlant driven research. in his fiction, chris explores
> > microarrays and antibody optimization. fair enough - however, i read
> > <a href="http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/J/JAPAN_ROBOT_NATION?
>
> - Show quoted text -
psique
Mar 11, 2008, 2:21:50 PM3/11/08
to iPlant
oh i didn't mean to jump on the humans will become obsolete bandwagon.
i was just thinking about unskilled work in particular, eg pipetting -
i dont think we'll need humans for that in 20-30 years time. the
trouble is that most people from the general population are not
educated enough to do the creative, complex things that need to be
done by humans in research. i wasn't argueing that human beings can be
replaced as such (you know that's not my style), just saying that
research will probably get much more automated in the future and that
should be taken into account.
On 11 Mrz., 18:03, Christopher
i was just thinking about unskilled work in particular, eg pipetting -
i dont think we'll need humans for that in 20-30 years time. the
trouble is that most people from the general population are not
educated enough to do the creative, complex things that need to be
done by humans in research. i wasn't argueing that human beings can be
replaced as such (you know that's not my style), just saying that
research will probably get much more automated in the future and that
should be taken into account.
On 11 Mrz., 18:03, Christopher
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages