4 ms·

I'm glad that Google has enough money to take on risky projects. So much of what they do fails - they essentially only have advertising. But to be honest nothin

I'm glad that Google has enough money to take on risky projects. So much of what they do fails - they essentially only have advertising. But to be honest nothing in that article seemed that world-changing or interesting. Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection. But nanoparticles for drug deliver is interesting but they've been doing something similar with bio-engineered antibodies since the early 2000s. (in fact, if you're rich enough you can get a tailored cancer treatment with antibodies specific to your own specific cancer - this has been around for awhile) I've long hoped that self-aware AI would come out of Google, but perhaps not. In comparison, Elon Musk seems like the true visionary.

rattray 12y ago
You may be giving up too soon here. None of the fruits of Google X's labors have hit mainstream production yet. You'll be able to judge them once they have.
- jacobkranz 12y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google Glass come out of X?
  - Igglyboo 12y ago
    Is Glass considered mainstream yet? I thought it was still for developers mainly.
    - adventured 12y ago
      As a product, it's not even a beta yet realistically. It's nowhere near being a fully launched product. Maybe in three to five years.
richsinn 12y ago
Are you kidding me? Not "interesting" ideas? > Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection. Using antibodies and tailored cancer treatment is still a reactive treatment. As the article states, the Google X Labs is aiming for "constant monitoring" of your body with these nanoparticles - hence creating a "proactive" ability to constantly monitor your body of potential issues. If achievable, that's pretty remarkable. > In comparison, Elon Musk seems like the true visionary. Both Page and Musk are visionaries. The logic you use to criticize Page's "mundane" ideas can be equally applied to Musk - serious attempts at modern electric cars have been around since the 90s [1][2], and space travel has been around since the 60s. Your logic would dictate that Musk is merely extending the work in those fields. Your criticism of Page's "moon shot" ideas not being world-changing/interesting greatly misses the point. Page and Musk have different areas of strengths, but I don't think you can call one of them a "true visionary" compared to the other. They've already both proven to be incredibly prescient on more than occasion. As for self-aware AI, we're a long ways away from that. Neither Page nor Musk nor anyone else is remotely close to self-aware AI. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>I've long hoped that self-aware AI would come out of Google, but perhaps not. No, that one's coming out of MIT. Gosh, don't you read journals ;-)?

rattray 12y ago

You may be giving up too soon here. None of the fruits of Google X's labors have hit mainstream production yet. You'll be able to judge them once they have.

jacobkranz 12y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google Glass come out of X?
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Is Glass considered mainstream yet? I thought it was still for developers mainly.
  - adventured 12y ago
    As a product, it's not even a beta yet realistically. It's nowhere near being a fully launched product. Maybe in three to five years.

richsinn 12y ago

Are you kidding me? Not "interesting" ideas? > Even the nanoparticles are mundane and not much more of an extension of the work that's been going on since the 90s on bio-chips for detection. Using antibodies and tailored cancer treatment is still a reactive treatment. As the article states, the Google X Labs is aiming for "constant monitoring" of your body with these nanoparticles - hence creating a "proactive" ability to constantly monitor your body of potential issues. If achievable, that's pretty remarkable. > In comparison, Elon Musk seems like the true visionary. Both Page and Musk are visionaries. The logic you use to criticize Page's "mundane" ideas can be equally applied to Musk - serious attempts at modern electric cars have been around since the 90s [1][2], and space travel has been around since the 60s. Your logic would dictate that Musk is merely extending the work in those fields. Your criticism of Page's "moon shot" ideas not being world-changing/interesting greatly misses the point. Page and Musk have different areas of strengths, but I don't think you can call one of them a "true visionary" compared to the other. They've already both proven to be incredibly prescient on more than occasion. As for self-aware AI, we're a long ways away from that. Neither Page nor Musk nor anyone else is remotely close to self-aware AI. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_Propulsion_tzero [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>I've long hoped that self-aware AI would come out of Google, but perhaps not. No, that one's coming out of MIT. Gosh, don't you read journals ;-)?