[Bill DeWitt]

I guess I was a bit misunderstood. I didn't mean whether a scientific research group would "approve" and thus continue a study by those that are not scientists. I was talking about what they think about those not scientists actually doing these projects. Whether they think we are nothings and they already know more than we do or if they think we are on some kind of equal ground, even if we are not going about it in the same way.

Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...

It's about whether or not a hobbyist or an AI hacker's work would get as much mainstream recognition if one were to come up with something good or better than what a researcher or scientist would come up with.

Make a profit, get recognition.

For example, I think Robert's Hal is a cool thing. ALICE is another, ther are many other chatbots out there.

Alice is fairly famous, I remember reading about the project in "Science" or something.

For example, if Nick became a full sentient bot, would it get reported in the news?

Now you are talking about the News business. That's a whole different thing. They report what makes money for their paper or makes them famous.

I am wondering if a lot of things that are really cool are being missed or passed up because of the "scientific community" status vs. the "hobbyist" status.

I doubt it. Anything that can be made into a functioning product, that people like or want or need, makes money. What you may be asking is "Can my favorite project get the kind of funding that some Scientist gets?" - only if you run it through the noise filter. Get a degree (the Alice creators did, IIRC), apply for a grant, defend your project in the journals.

Another thing is, what do scientists do on their spare time? Probably not what they do at work. What does a hacker do on their spare time. More of the same.

My Dad the rocket scientist hand turned his own rocket motors at home and built rocket powered boats. My next door neighbor the Rocket scientist shot off model rockets every weekend.

The main difference between most scientists and most hobbyists is the scientist had the personal discipline to work their butts of for 8 years to get a degree in their field. I can see them wondering if you or I have the personal investment required to do their level of work. Certainly it's possible, but they may already have had to listen to 30-40 weekend warriors with big ideas and no education before we came along with our big ideas. I'd forgive a little looking down the nose.

[FuzzieDice]

Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...

See, that's what I'm talking about. I really don't think this is true. I believe that the "regular guy" can come up with things scientists wouldn't have even dreamed of, without reinventing a wheel. Why? Because Scientists are not the only ones with creative thinking abilities. Everyone has that capability. The problem is people put more stock in "scientists" than they do in anything else, thinking if it doesn't come from a scientist then it wasn't any good.

I can't wait to see the looks on scientists' faces when (and I do mean WHEN) the "regular guy" or a non-scientist comes up with something that nobody ever thought of.

It may also be why a lot of private projects are very secret. Becuase it is too easy to steal ideas and then say that scientists came up with it when they may have taken ideas from "the regular guy" and expanded on it, meaning they didn't invent anything new. But the "regular guy" would not get credit becuase he isn't a scientist! Ideas can get stolen that way. I believe some of these researchers and scientsts do look for things on the web, research what others are doing. Keeping something secret until it's ready for public use may be one way the "regular guy" as you put it, can hold control over their inventions.

What you may be asking is "Can my favorite project get the kind of funding that some Scientist gets?"

No, not at all. Far from it. I'm not talking about funding. I'm talking about innovation. And more specifically who is taken more seriously for such innovations. Or if someone unfairly gets credit for something someone (seen as a lesser party) did.

only if you run it through the noise filter. Get a degree (the Alice creators did, IIRC), apply for a grant, defend your project in the journals.

You don't need a degree to invent something amazing. We just don't hear about those that had no degrees that invented something amazing because those with degrees were able to take those ideas and claim them for themselves, and thus they got credit instead.

I'm not saying all scientists and researchers are theives, but I'm also saying not all non-degreed, non-scientist people are stupid or incapable of innovation either.

The main difference between most scientists and most hobbyists is the scientist had the personal discipline to work their butts of for 8 years to get a degree in their field. I can see them wondering if you or I have the personal investment required to do their level of work.

A hacker spent their time 16 - 20 hours a day, sun-up to sun-down experimenting, learning, researching and coding and making things. Not sitting in a classroom reading a text book, following pre-planned instructions and lab experiments. They explored. Anytime they had a question, they looked for the answer themselves, and found it. They really learned the system.

The whole idea here is, that people should understand that innovative inventions do not always have to come from highly educated people. Often those who think for themselves rather than have education think for them can get a lot farther with things. The problem is, they are held back by the general consensus that if they are not in the "educated clique" then they are not worth anything.

So very untrue.

[FuzzieDice]

Hackers and crackers are, today, used pretty much interchangably. Crackers crack code Hackers hack into programs and hardware.

That's the media's definition. However, hackers created Linux. A very useful thing. There is a difference between Hackers and Crackers. Hackers do not just "hack into programs and hardware", they CREATE those programs and hardware, or if they do hack into something it isn't without the knowledge and permission of the original author. GPL is what many hackers love becuase it encourages the sharing and expanding of code. What the media defines is not right. Ask any TRUE hacker (not the "haxor" types that THINK they are hackers but really are using the media definition and are nothing more than crackers).

Whether scientists, researchers, engineers, lawyers or any professional person with a sheepskin to prove it, tends to "look down their noses" at a non-professional person who attampts to dabble in their field of endeavor.

"You have no degree therefore you can't possibly have any worthwhile ideas of your own!" kind of sentiment.

They can live in their rose colored world and think what they will but a person with a lot of common sense can accomplish much more in life than an educated idiot with none!

Well said!!

[Bill DeWitt]

Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...

See, that's what I'm talking about. I really don't think this is true. I believe that the "regular guy" can come up with things scientists wouldn't have even dreamed of, without reinventing a wheel.

Certainly they can, and do (as my quoted statement declares), just not very often in the grand scheme of things. Look around for a while and you will see thousands of backyard inventors reinventing the wheel or the hovercraft or the solar cooker or electric car or chatbot. Sure, every now and then one does something amazing and creative and profitable, but that's a fluke. Sure he worked hard and studied his craft, but that's unusual.

Most of the time it's folk who think that their "creative ability" can replace years of hard work. Nice dream.

Often people come up with what seems like a great idea, but never have the resources to test it and find out what a good engineer could have told them. There are reasons why some good ideas are not implemented.

I've done it. My whole life I wanted to be an inventor, my first big idea was the ram jet helicopter. I drew detailed diagrams in 5th grade. Then I found that it had been build by Sikorsky before I was born, spun off a few dozen rotors, killed a guy and was replaced with better ideas. (Actually, my memory of this cannot be confirmed. I find that Hiller made a working RJ helicopter about the same time, but abandoned it because of fuel consumption problems. I don't find the story I remember.)

Good idea shot down by the Laws of Nature.

I have stated several times that creative work can and is done by non-professionals, but you missed those parts of my posts. Perhaps I was not clear enough. But the fact that you missed it is a symptom of what many professionals have to deal with. "It's a great idea, but you forgot that friction will make your perpetual motion machine slow down over time." "Good plan, but the cost is greater than the savings."

That's why our society invented those "noise filters" I've been talking about. Many people want their ideas to be granted filter free passage, and that might be a good thing once in a while, but the average benefit is just not there. Accurate bookkeeping advocates against it.

99 time out of a 100 is not good odds. Sure, that 100th time is really cool, but you can't make a living on that kind of gamble.

The "regular guy" with a truly good idea, should invest his own money and make a marketable product. He takes the risk - he gets to reap the benefit. That's the "backdoor" past the noise filter.

Every other month I see another of my good ideas in the "What's New" pages of 'Popular Science'. I didn't do the work required to produce a marketable product. Sony did it instead. That's called "bad luck"...

[FuzzieDice]

Quite frankly I don't care what they think. And if someone that is not a degreed scientist comes up with something amazing, it's not a fluke. They were just able to protect their invention from being stolen by someone with more power/money.

And I don't think all Scientists are like that. I bet there *are* a good many out there that are willing to work with people who are not degreed scientists on certain projects. This "noise filter" you mention may have existed in areas you were aquainted with. But it doesn't necessarily have to hold true in all cases or all places.

You may be convinced of one side of it. But I'm sure there is another side too. THAT is the side I'm wondering about.

[Bill DeWitt]

Quite frankly I don't care what they think. And if someone that is not a degreed scientist comes up with something amazing, it's not a fluke.

We must be using different definitions of the word "fluke". Have it your way.