SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In May last year, a supercomputer in San Jose, California, read 100,000 research papers in 2 hours. It found completely new biology hidden in the data. Called KnIT, the computer is one of a handful of systems pushing back the frontiers of knowledge without human help.
KnIT didn't read the papers like a scientist – that would have taken a lifetime. Instead, it scanned for information on a protein called p53, and a class of enzymes that can interact with it, called kinases. Also known as "the guardian of the genome", p53 suppresses tumors in humans. KnIT trawled the literature searching for links that imply undiscovered p53 kinases, which could provide routes to new cancer drugs.
Having analyzed papers up until 2003, KnIT identified seven of the nine kinases discovered over the subsequent 10 years. More importantly, it also found what appeared to be two p53 kinases unknown to science. Initial lab tests confirmed the findings, although the team wants to repeat the experiment to be sure.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by TGV on Sunday August 31 2014, @05:28AM
If a group on two hundred students had been reading through all these papers, would the headline have been: Students Make Discoveries that Scientists Can't? If it had been two hundred scientists, would it have been: Scientists Make Discoveries that Scientists Can't? A better headline would have been: body of literature too large, and that's the case since a long time. In larger fields, many studies have already been done, but nobody knows.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @05:35AM
Just what precisely is your complaint here?
The computer was able to synthesize something new from a set of information that is too big to fit into any single human brain. Synthesis is a key characteristic of intelligence. However narrow the application in this case, it is essentially an aspect of AI research.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:04AM
If you read the provided link, you will find that the title was provided by the original source material. I do not think that it sensationalizes supercomputer science and it accurately describes what took place.
I accept that when the editors get something wrong they should be called out for it - and we often are. If we make a mistake then we try to both correct it and apologise for the error. But there is a growing tendency for nit-picking of minor detail in stories. If we are getting that much wrong then perhaps other members of the community should step up to the plate and shoulder some of the burden. But take note - nobody on SN gets paid anything, we all do it because we believe in this site, we are all trying to do our best, and I have had 2 weekends off since May.
We would rather see a comment on the story itself than read that someone who has spent a lot more time than we might have available has thought of a different wording to the title.
Just my 2 cents worth...
(Score: 1) by TGV on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:33AM
> the title was provided by the original source material
I know e.g. reddit insists on copying the title of an article in a link, but there's absolutely no need for that. Here are two other descriptions of the same research with rather different titles:
https://www.bcm.edu/news/research/automated-reasoning-hypothesis-generation [bcm.edu]
http://www.hpcwire.com/2014/08/28/watson-based-tool-automates-discovery/ [hpcwire.com]
> We would rather see a comment on the story itself than read that someone who has spent a lot more time than we might have available has thought of a different wording to the title.
Passive-aggressive insults from editors to readers. Nice. (BTW, I know this is a one too; it's just to make you experience what such a phrase can provoke).
I disagree (mildly) with your statement anyway. Editors take it upon themselves to spend time on reading the article and making an entry. They're the reason people visit soylentnews. We visit sites like this because we can't or don't want to spend much time on reading through all the announcements. Soylentnews had the vague promise of being more down-to-earth and less "repeat the PR in order to get clicks" than other sites.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @08:13AM
> Editors take it upon themselves to spend time on reading the article and making an entry. They're the reason people visit soylentnews.
Perhaps that's why you come here, but the reason Soylent was created was for the community as expressed in the comments section because slashdot was making changes that minimized their community.
If you want news summarized to standards that you approve of you should considering hiring someone to do that for you.
Or more succinctly, quit being an ass.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Sunday August 31 2014, @09:27AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday August 31 2014, @11:33AM
My comment wasn't intended to be an insult of any kind - and apologies if it came across as one. As I mentioned in my previous post, yours is not the only comment criticizing the title, subject matter, or layout of the material that we post. We know that we haven't got it right all the time yet and we do take note of corrections and suggestions - but we get far more encouragement when we see comments on the story rather than those pointing out different ways it could be titled or whatever. There are many different ways it could be written, but sometimes I go for one which (in my opinion) summarizes the summary succinctly and accurately.
My personal view is that the two alternatives that you suggested are both acceptable but not significantly better than the title I used. You have the right to disagree with my opinion.
I may have volunteered to be an editor, but when it stops being a pleasure and becomes a chore, and especially a chore for which we seem to be criticized for trivial reasons (and I do think that the title, in this instance, is a trivial point), it is hard to keep being motivated and not to consider simply leaving it to someone else. Except there are very few others who seem to want to help.
None of this is intended as an insult to you or any other members of our community - so please do not take it as one.
(Score: 2) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday August 31 2014, @01:17PM
By all means, please submit stories that you've summarized to meet your personal standards and assigned headlines that you feel accurately reflect the content of the stories you link to.
The easiest way to improve the level of content in this community is to lead by example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @02:38PM
Scientists are nit-picky. Don't take it as a bad thing. Scientists constantly try to catch themselves and others in their wording to prevent overstatements or be more precise: "significant difference" - did they do statistics?; "p53 kinase" - direct or indirect?; "activates the kinase" - did they do a kinase assay or just look at downstream targets?; "drives transcription" - does it directly bind the promoter/enhancer in cells or did they just correlate transcriptional changes?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday August 31 2014, @06:13PM
er, I don't know. Is 42 a good answer?
You make a valid point - but the questions that you ask are way beyond any area of my expertise! Sorry that my summary must seem to you as though it was written by a child./p.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Monday September 01 2014, @12:26AM
er, I don't know. Is 42 a good answer?
LOL! Oh for a mod point.