InsideTech

@ghendric: For the same reason that any other form of peer review exists, to verify that the results produced are accurate. It would be pretty stupid to assume that a process produces accurate results on faith alone without externally verifying those results, at least from time to time.

Um, excuse me. I'm no scientist. But since when did the human race considered computers and robots superior than human beings??? Computers and robots are tools to assist the humans with various work duties, not to replace humans. Computers and Robots do not think on their own. Computer programmers write software to make the computer and robots appear that they're thinking. But no way is the computer actually thinking. Only humans have thinking ability, not machines. And for those of you who believe in a perfect world where robot and machines fight the front lines? You had better get a serous reality check. Nothing is perfect in this world. NOTHING. No matter how hard and diligently humans work to develop perfect things, those things NEVER turn out to be perfect. Humans have flaws and those flaws manifest themselves into the products that humans develop. So don't think for one second that the world would be a happy, perfect place with "thinking" machines working for us. Thinking that is a bad mistake. Believing in that is FATAL!

Oh yeah, and feedback loops :)

As an aspiring programmer, I would very much like to take a look at the software in this. It is likely that they just need to add a new database into it for each different research projects. So it's just a matter of building the database, then adding it to the existing software. I am sure that, once most of the databases are completed, its programming will be modified so that it can switch between them when it needs to, without human interaction. However, I am sure that some things will need human interaction to be researched effectively. There is nothing like human ingenuity... yet... Hey, do I hear the Terminator soundtrack? Oh crap...

There's only one thing I see going wrong with this... What name will they give the third robot? Snake?

This is truly amazing. Anyone who throws sarcastic comments is taking for granted the things we have nowadays. Honestly, it truly is an amazing thing when a machine can reason for itself. I mean, imagine if you're toaster were able to recognize when it had burnt the toast? From there making a hypothesis on how to improve, testing the hypothesis, and seeing the results. I mean, as small as this is, your toaster would always be able to give you your toast exactly as you like it.

In a larger spectrum, Automated Cars (like those in the movie "iRobot") are closer than ever. If the car could reason for itself how to accelerate and when to slow down, where to turn, it would be amazing.

I say, Kudos to those researchers, they are trying their hardest and it's paying off. We may only see a robot that does tests of yeast now. But in the future, we may see battleships that can fly themselves, and make the best judgment call, not like the ones shown in movie (where the robot enslaves mankind for the protection of mankind) but rather, where the computer can reason and see just as a human does, what is the best choice.

Not only could this mean perfect toast. It could mean the saving of thousands of innocent lives, those who fight for us now on the front lines. If we could replace them with robots, the world would be a whole lot happier.
Think, before you speak, that when you are making your jeers at these researchers, that you are critisizing those who would rescue those distraught mothers from the tears they will have when they hear that their only son died in the service of his country.

Goodluck with Eve.

I like the idea and it's good to see the world moving forward but where's John Conner when you need him?

its really interesting. i am just thinking how is that in real..