How do you feel about the title of your article? I assume an editor chose it.
Clearly he's straight up evil; between tanking the global economy, constantly lying, and raping his 3 year old sister, it feels really disingenuous to me to frame this as an open question.
With humanoid robots, a large chunk of what would otherwise be highly expensive to automate becomes possible. "ALL" science may not be automatable. But lots will be.
Absurd. The scientific apparatus is already automated. What are you going to do, have your humanoid robot do the pipetting when there is already a specialized machine that fills trays of 100 samples every 5 seconds? (Totally made up example.)
There might be a way to phrase the future as a tradeoff of capital expenditures; at least that argument would be worth reading about.
Most science is not automated like this in practice. You only see robotic pipetting and fluid handling when you're looking at something more like production or development or you have a truly ridiculous amount of variations to try that are otherwise extremely uniform.
Just saying.
reply