jf-

22 ms·

181.
by jf- 8y ago
Think of this: You have a digital library of sequences that are fed into an AI that predicts structure. The structures are fed into an AI that predicts the desired function based on that structure. You use an optimisation algorithm to ident
182.
by jf- 8y ago
Or just don’t bother open sourcing it and running the risk of being caught. In principle I agree with you, but in practical terms it would be a very wacky double bluff to pull.
183.
by jf- 8y ago
I think you’re suffering from a lack of imagination. It’ll be interesting to see where closed loop directed evolution[0], which is what I was alluding to above, ends up in five years with these kinds of advances. [0] https://en.m.
184.
by jf- 8y ago
Be that as it may, if you’re trying to hide something releasing it as open source is a pretty terrible way to do it.
185.
by jf- 8y ago
Not really, this is more of a route to nanotechnology via biology. It’s more than just stringing together amino acids.
186.
by jf- 8y ago
Very well. Point taken.
187.
by jf- 8y ago
Ooh. Interesting connection! You have to wonder if that wasn’t in the back of someone’s mind during the restructure.
188.
by jf- 8y ago
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that reads to me as thoughtless eye rolling cynicism. Is there a basis to it? Does quantum computing not offer our best shot at solving currently unsolvable problems?
189.
by jf- 8y ago
It’s the only progress we’re likely to get on mathematically intractable problems, until maybe a few generations into quantum computing.
190.
by jf- 8y ago
That’s just minimising the accomplishment, predicting structure need not be the end of the process for it to be a significant advance.
191.
by jf- 8y ago
It’s not unreasonable to be cautious. Nuclear accidents did happen, which is what lead people to fear nuclear power, even if it is safer than the public realises. Not barging full speed ahead into unknown technologies with large downside po
192.
by jf- 8y ago
> Our team focused specifically on the hard problem of modelling target shapes from scratch, without using previously solved proteins as templates. I have a feeling they’re going after the biologics market with this. Predict structure di
193.
by jf- 8y ago
That’s difficult to discuss without knowing the details, but it’s hard to believe that there isn’t anything that is of use to someone outside of amazon, even other cloud providers. There must be some efficiency gains somewhere that would be
194.
by jf- 8y ago
I don’t see how you interpreted it that way - anything released with a proprietary license, or closed source and not released at all, is proprietary. The fact that it’s derivative of an MIT or similarly licensed work makes no difference.
195.
by jf- 8y ago
If they aren’t open sourcing the innovations they make on top of open source software, then it is proprietary software. I think amazon are unlikely to give up any competitive advantage they are not forced to give up.
196.
by jf- 8y ago
Depends on what you call the right cause. If you’ve joined the British army we can assume you think the UK’s interests are the right cause. If everyone else is doing this they can’t very well not it too, it would be like not having an army
197.
by jf- 8y ago
I think I’ve said as much as I need to at this point. However regarding your friend, incels, and other such people: some people have mental and personality disorders that make them act extremely towards themselves and others. I don’t think
198.
by jf- 8y ago
World: We need a solution to climate change! HN: Ok, picture this - gigantic, genetically engineered, milkable tarantulas!
199.
by jf- 8y ago
I don’t think you realistically can milk a spider. ...another sentence I never thought I’d say.
200.
by jf- 8y ago
> No? I'm not even sure what fields... It’s an easy strategy to fall back on, you don’t like the implications of a piece of research? Claim the researchers are just propagandists. Make this claim of anyone who finds against your cla
201.
by jf- 8y ago
It’s paywalled, so I can’t see what what kind of messages they were, e.g. sms, whatsapp etc. Even though it seems stupid for someone in his position to send ordinary texts, he may not know that. Think of trump using his own phone to tweet.
202.
by jf- 8y ago
> And yet science has a history of creating "facts" that exist to promote a certain worldview with a veneer of impartiality. These "facts" are created by and to be social actors. Racist and misogynist ones in particul
203.
by jf- 8y ago
> “biology” is misandrist and misogynist both. When we’re anthropomorphising facts and telling them that they’re bad, something has gone wrong. Facts are not social actors, they don’t care if you try to shame them, they’ll still be true.
204.
by jf- 8y ago
I prefer to imagine our descendants being happy.
205.
by jf- 8y ago
No, I’m suggesting that you have your children earlier in life. It’s best to think of it like a certain number, the exact genetic identity of the kids is a toss-up anyway, and if you really want to argue that point you’d be arguing for bein
206.
by jf- 8y ago
Would you like to assign me any more imaginary opinions? Your reply is an exercise in whatabouttery: ignore this harm because look at all those harms over there. Controlling the age at which one has children is within one’s power to control
207.
by jf- 8y ago
If you happen to also have a time machine.
208.
by jf- 8y ago
> Oh? Would you like to tell when is a _good_ time for your father to die? The later the better. > And maybe taking care of a parent with dementia is actually more of a problem when you're older and have kids of your own? It woul
209.
by jf- 8y ago
That’s the best case scenario. Add in smoking, drinking, high blood pressure and obesity, all of which are common, and it’s as low as 62, from a starting age of 51.
210.
by jf- 8y ago
I debated about whether to post this, because it’s rather emotive, even unsettling, but on the off chance it might actually sway someone, I will. The average life expectancy for a male in the USA is 76. All other things being equal, a 51 ye

More ›