Thinking about big science, the human genome project looms large. I'm not an expert so: did this project fulfil its potential? From what I've seen, it seems the major achievement was development of sequencing tech and a focus on open data. Otherwise, people still talking in terms of potential value?
Apologies in advance if this comes across as ignorant, I really don't know much about genetics.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social
@neuralreckoning I don't have any sort of complete answer for you but I think you would enjoy reading this if you haven't yet: https://www.genome.gov/virtual-exhibits/human-genome-project-is-simply-a-bad-idea
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wronglang@bayes.club
@neuralreckoning I'll add that it had some of the same important effects every other big science project has had: the consistent training of many researchers at all levels in a field that society has decided is important to fund. Was definitely a better choice than the current AI rampage.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wronglang@bayes.club
@wronglang thanks for the link! I tend to agree about the level of spend on AI but I guess if it works and if the corporations don't turn it against us, it might turn out to have been worth it?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social
@neuralreckoning one positive I've seen is the whisper model: for English it's a turn-key model packaged for all sorts of uses that does speech to text with surprising reliability (for at least some voices) so like for free software assistive technology it seems like a real blessing. All the previous models I had tried were just monstrous to get going with.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from wronglang@bayes.club This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini