• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They already make machines to do repetitive pipetting, it’s just that humans are cheaper and more widely usable.

    • DudeBro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our lab’s auto pipetter is broken about 60% of the time, most days we just shut it off and reroute specimens to the workbenches to do it by hand because it’s faster than attempting to fix it or call customer service. Maybe once the good-for-nothing customer service repair phone line is replaced by AI it will actually function and be worth the half a million dollars we spent on this stupid machine, lol

    • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am meaning more than just the piping as AI is starting to observe now too. Read here the other day that an AI is researching new materials unassisted in a lab.

      • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re lucky if people in the physical sciences know how to restart their computer. Sure, they’re experts in their fields, but actively avoid learning new technology unless someone twists their arm.

        The fields that could benefit from robots the most are the least equipped in terms of money and requisite tech knowledge to use a robot. Instead, you’re likely to see them used in for-profit labs and those aren’t the ones that tend to do novel research. Well-funded biotech and pharmaceutical companies are likely to have robots, but many of those don’t want to do discovery-stage research. They tend to buy discoveries from public university labs.