Version: 2008

Comments on: Google's Page urges scientists to market themselves

Page describes several of his areas of interest in science and technology during the hour-long talk, which was a rare engagement for the nerdy billionaire.
Photo: Page on stage
Video: Page talks science

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (42 Comments)
Page is an rich idiot
by esperanto_ February 17, 2007 1:02 PM PST
His analogy vis-a-vis the size of DNA and the size of our modern OS products is surely all wrong. A more apt comparison with DNA would be the microcode that lives in the CPU and from which all other instructions and operations spring. And maybe that doesnt hold up either--it's foolish to assume we know enough about DNA to make this comparison at all.
Reply to this comment
DNA is nothing more than the human source code.
by feranick February 17, 2007 1:43 PM PST
DNA is nothing more than the human source code. When compiled, the final product is, well, us. Bugs are present, and if compiled wrong, they give origin to genetic diseases. Compiling the DNA means using a compiler program (proteins) to fully assemble a final product in the form of cells, etc. The DNA is pretty modular, so you can build different types of cells and organs.

So there is no code embedded in CPU (not even in real computers). All the "instructions and operation springs" are given by the compiled program, usually residing in memory, or in the syngle cells themselves. This is the reason why you can't really put together a bunch of cells and expect them to form a living organism.
Before you call someone an idiot...
by Hunterseeker1 February 18, 2007 6:24 AM PST
...you should make sure your statement is grammatically correct.

-Clint
Sarasota, FL
Page is an rich idiot
by esperanto_ February 17, 2007 1:02 PM PST
His analogy vis-a-vis the size of DNA and the size of our modern OS products is surely all wrong. A more apt comparison with DNA would be the microcode that lives in the CPU and from which all other instructions and operations spring. And maybe that doesnt hold up either--it's foolish to assume we know enough about DNA to make this comparison at all.
Reply to this comment
Before you call someone an idiot...
by Hunterseeker1 February 18, 2007 6:24 AM PST
...you should make sure your statement is grammatically correct.

-Clint
Sarasota, FL
DNA is nothing more than the human source code.
by feranick May 6, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
DNA is nothing more than the human source code. When compiled, the final product is, well, us. Bugs are present, and if compiled wrong, they give origin to genetic diseases. Compiling the DNA means using a compiler program (proteins) to fully assemble a final product in the form of cells, etc. The DNA is pretty modular, so you can build different types of cells and organs.

So there is no code embedded in CPU (not even in real computers). All the "instructions and operation springs" are given by the compiled program, usually residing in memory, or in the syngle cells themselves. This is the reason why you can't really put together a bunch of cells and expect them to form a living organism.
the scientists should use adwords also
by aldracu February 17, 2007 1:45 PM PST
...
Reply to this comment
the scientists should use adwords also
by aldracu February 17, 2007 1:45 PM PST
...
Reply to this comment
Something to look forward to.
by dimadoo February 17, 2007 6:32 PM PST
Having a company collect bright minds under a single roof, as Google does, and then making a statement like this ... it deserves a moment of thought.

Such a step would push the expectations of online services to a new level. We're approaching a type of intuitive internet by perfecting interactivity (e.g. Client side coding i.e. JavaScript) and accelerating online development (Ruby on Rails, PHP and competitive frameworks, MySQL). Yet none have taken the 'net to the 'next level'. Artificial Intelligence, DNA storing; they all seemed like science fiction in the early 90s. Today, they could only be the product of the online collaboration.

Such innovations would bring about change that we can only imagine. Personally, i look froward to the day when written text could be translated into any language.

(Proper spelling courtesy of Firefox 2.0)
Reply to this comment
Something to look forward to.
by dimadoo February 17, 2007 6:32 PM PST
Having a company collect bright minds under a single roof, as Google does, and then making a statement like this ... it deserves a moment of thought.

Such a step would push the expectations of online services to a new level. We're approaching a type of intuitive internet by perfecting interactivity (e.g. Client side coding i.e. JavaScript) and accelerating online development (Ruby on Rails, PHP and competitive frameworks, MySQL). Yet none have taken the 'net to the 'next level'. Artificial Intelligence, DNA storing; they all seemed like science fiction in the early 90s. Today, they could only be the product of the online collaboration.

Such innovations would bring about change that we can only imagine. Personally, i look froward to the day when written text could be translated into any language.

(Proper spelling courtesy of Firefox 2.0)
Reply to this comment
It will appear that "lesfilip"...
by Commander_Spock February 17, 2007 9:46 PM PST
... may very well be on to something what he compares "Commander_Spock" to a "Program inter alia"; but, why he feels the "The Program" should be recompiled/integrated with DNA from that KOOL AID that he is integrated with is questionable. Trying to get infect the "The Program" with bugs... eh; or, is it a marketing campaign against Commander_Spock's Program!
Reply to this comment
It will appear that "lesfilip"...
by Commander_Spock February 17, 2007 9:46 PM PST
... may very well be on to something what he compares "Commander_Spock" to a "Program inter alia"; but, why he feels the "The Program" should be recompiled/integrated with DNA from that KOOL AID that he is integrated with is questionable. Trying to get infect the "The Program" with bugs... eh; or, is it a marketing campaign against Commander_Spock's Program!
Reply to this comment
"Google co-founder Larry Page...
by Commander_Spock February 17, 2007 10:21 PM PST
... has a theory: your DNA is about 600 megabytes compressed, making it smaller than any modern operating system like Linux or Windows has a theory: your DNA is about 600 megabytes compressed, making it smaller than any modern operating system like Linux or Windows...", so the, it appears that DNAs are incomplete when it comes to the complete computing actions as there appears to be no considerations given to the applications (Networking....) DNA to integrate with those of the Operating Systems' DNA!
Reply to this comment
So, in theorizing then...
by Commander_Spock February 18, 2007 9:45 AM PST
... "600 megabytes compressed" to the Nth Power = one hell of a Super Computer. WOW!
Reply to this comment
So, in theorizing then...
by Commander_Spock February 18, 2007 9:45 AM PST
... "600 megabytes compressed" to the Nth Power = one hell of a Super Computer. WOW!
Reply to this comment
Intelligence is in the connections not the bits
by sent2null February 18, 2007 4:56 PM PST
It is interesting that Page would get up to talk about the compressed size of the genetic information in an organism by way of it's DNA and then equate that to the potential intelligence of the expressed organism. This is an incorrect association, intelligence is more and more seen as an emergent property not of sheer number of computational bits or memory elements but of their interaction or connections. This is where leading research indicates intelligence lies, AI would need to simulate the interaction between these connections at the same/similar level as that done in the brain of an intelligent biological brain like our own in order to have a hope of achieving parity. (This is only one falacy in Pages argument, binary computation is not bit comparable to DNA since DNA is a 4bit (G,C,A,T) system in the genes that fans out to a much larger space of possibilities in the expressed proteome. This ensures the possibilities of expression in biological organisms are significantly beyond the capacity of the memory of all computers on earth in fact, because protein function is determined by shape and shape by the number and type of amino acids in the polypeptide chain..there is an infinite amount of possibilities of expression assuming no limit on protein length.)

Developments in various areas of present day computer design, physics and neurobiology point to this assertion. Eg. Computers are capable of crunching massive amounts of numbers, yet many classes of problems are exceedingly difficult for computers to process because of the sheer amount of computation required to solve them. Quantum Computation looks to the "connections" between storage elements to solve these types of problems in the form of massive arrays of atoms, collectively tuned to be fed problems and then read out to extract solutions to those problems. At least that is the dream, currently the simplest quantum computers are only capable of processing low bit and therefor simple problems relative to even todays computers but the technology will scale. I think that biological intelligence is more like a quantum computer and less like a binary computer, though it may be possible in theory to through computation at the AI problem , it is possible that all the computers in all the world could not working together achieve the connectedness needed to span the problem space spanned by an intelligent brain and emerge a similar "intelligence".

As an engineer my guess is AI will emerge not from current traditional silicon computers but instead from a combination of quantum computers and silicon computers once commercial quantum computers are available. So I guess not for another 15 - 20 years.
Reply to this comment
Missing Information
by fiacc February 21, 2007 4:23 AM PST
I agree, also Page is ignoring the constraints and information inherent within the physical environment that DNA works within E.g. the chemical bonds between the molecules and such. What he's talking about is like recording a snapshot of a game of soccer
at a single instant (the coordinates of each player on the pitch etc) with a concise representation of bits that
takes up 600Mb. Now what use would these bits be if you had no understanding of what soccer was or how it
was played?
DNA can take this for granted but if you trying to simulate living organisms on a silicon computer
you don't have that luxury.
View reply
Intelligence is in the connections not the bits
by sent2null February 18, 2007 4:56 PM PST
It is interesting that Page would get up to talk about the compressed size of the genetic information in an organism by way of it's DNA and then equate that to the potential intelligence of the expressed organism. This is an incorrect association, intelligence is more and more seen as an emergent property not of sheer number of computational bits or memory elements but of their interaction or connections. This is where leading research indicates intelligence lies, AI would need to simulate the interaction between these connections at the same/similar level as that done in the brain of an intelligent biological brain like our own in order to have a hope of achieving parity. (This is only one falacy in Pages argument, binary computation is not bit comparable to DNA since DNA is a 4bit (G,C,A,T) system in the genes that fans out to a much larger space of possibilities in the expressed proteome. This ensures the possibilities of expression in biological organisms are significantly beyond the capacity of the memory of all computers on earth in fact, because protein function is determined by shape and shape by the number and type of amino acids in the polypeptide chain..there is an infinite amount of possibilities of expression assuming no limit on protein length.)

Developments in various areas of present day computer design, physics and neurobiology point to this assertion. Eg. Computers are capable of crunching massive amounts of numbers, yet many classes of problems are exceedingly difficult for computers to process because of the sheer amount of computation required to solve them. Quantum Computation looks to the "connections" between storage elements to solve these types of problems in the form of massive arrays of atoms, collectively tuned to be fed problems and then read out to extract solutions to those problems. At least that is the dream, currently the simplest quantum computers are only capable of processing low bit and therefor simple problems relative to even todays computers but the technology will scale. I think that biological intelligence is more like a quantum computer and less like a binary computer, though it may be possible in theory to through computation at the AI problem , it is possible that all the computers in all the world could not working together achieve the connectedness needed to span the problem space spanned by an intelligent brain and emerge a similar "intelligence".

As an engineer my guess is AI will emerge not from current traditional silicon computers but instead from a combination of quantum computers and silicon computers once commercial quantum computers are available. So I guess not for another 15 - 20 years.
Reply to this comment
Missing Information
by fiacc May 6, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
I agree, also Page is ignoring the constraints and information inherent within the physical environment that DNA works within E.g. the chemical bonds between the molecules and such. What he's talking about is like recording a snapshot of a game of soccer
at a single instant (the coordinates of each player on the pitch etc) with a concise representation of bits that
takes up 600Mb. Now what use would these bits be if you had no understanding of what soccer was or how it
was played?
DNA can take this for granted but if you trying to simulate living organisms on a silicon computer
you don't have that luxury.
View reply
Funny, I was just on TeachRose.com today...
by fulotta February 19, 2007 12:08 AM PST
speaking of recent interest in AI, I totally am into it now. There's a few great websites out there, one is the teach rose one and there are some others listed in wikipedia under AI. check em out
Reply to this comment
Funny, I was just on TeachRose.com today...
by fulotta February 19, 2007 12:08 AM PST
speaking of recent interest in AI, I totally am into it now. There's a few great websites out there, one is the teach rose one and there are some others listed in wikipedia under AI. check em out
Reply to this comment
Funny, I was just on TeachRose.com today...
by fulotta February 19, 2007 12:08 AM PST
speaking of recent interest in AI, I totally am into it now. There's a few great websites out there, one is the teach rose one and there are some others listed in wikipedia under AI. check em out
Reply to this comment
Funny, I was just on TeachRose.com today...
by fulotta February 19, 2007 12:08 AM PST
speaking of recent interest in AI, I totally am into it now. There's a few great websites out there, one is the teach rose one and there are some others listed in wikipedia under AI. check em out
Reply to this comment
Economic growth due to scientific progress or marketing?
by Ted_In_AK February 19, 2007 12:56 AM PST
"Virtually all economic growth (in the world) was due to technological progress."

I must disagree...I posit that (nearly) all economic growth is due to market conditions, not technological conditions. Please disabuse me of my skeptisism, but I ask someone to show me one instance of a technological breakthrough that survived on it's own. Us sheep only buy what is actively marketed to us, not what is actually good for us.

Case-in-point...the Pet Rock. I rest my case.
Reply to this comment
"show me one instance...
by Commander_Spock February 19, 2007 6:14 AM PST
... of a technological breakthrough that survived on it's own. Us sheep only buy what is actively marketed to us, not what is actually good for us.".: Here is one - THE "WHEEL". Yet, another is the "MICROPROCESSOR" So, there you have two!
This guy is SO WRONG!!!
by unc_tarheels February 19, 2007 5:49 PM PST
Is this guy an idiot??? The amount of information contained in one's DNA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of information contained in a human brain. Brain "information" or "intelligence" is related to the number of neural connections which is approximately 10^50. That is way, way more than 600 Megabytes (10^6). Inorder to duplicate the processing capability of the human brain, you would need a million, million petabytes. Although not impossible to simulate, I think that we are a few hundred years away.
Reply to this comment
You've misunderstood.
by dustball23 February 19, 2007 7:12 PM PST
He wasn't comparing the amount of information in one's DNA to the amount of information in the human brain.

A premise of his talk was that the information in one's DNA was essentially the "programming" for the brain.

Of course the brain will continue to take in new data through the senses, and also generate new information on its own.

But when the sperm meets the egg - DNA is all you really have information-wise, and that is the programming code.
View reply
This guy is SO WRONG!!!
by unc_tarheels February 19, 2007 5:49 PM PST
Is this guy an idiot??? The amount of information contained in one's DNA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of information contained in a human brain. Brain "information" or "intelligence" is related to the number of neural connections which is approximately 10^50. That is way, way more than 600 Megabytes (10^6). Inorder to duplicate the processing capability of the human brain, you would need a million, million petabytes. Although not impossible to simulate, I think that we are a few hundred years away.
Reply to this comment
You've misunderstood.
by dustball23 May 6, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
He wasn't comparing the amount of information in one's DNA to the amount of information in the human brain.

A premise of his talk was that the information in one's DNA was essentially the "programming" for the brain.

Of course the brain will continue to take in new data through the senses, and also generate new information on its own.

But when the sperm meets the egg - DNA is all you really have information-wise, and that is the programming code.
View reply
Showing 1 of 2 pages (42 Comments)
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement