jlevy.pa@XEROX.COM (01/28/88)
David Smith writes:
"Date: Fri, 22 Jan 88 14:21:05 est
From: Mr. David Smith <dsmith@gelac.arpa>
Subject: Nano-engineering
... [deleted quote] ...
Some time ago, I asked a net question about nano-engineering and all roads
led to Eric Drexler. Frankly, I was pleased to see this net mail putting
such activities into perspective. At the risk of sounding Pharisaic, I
believe that the cause of "serious AI" is seriously hindered by such blatant
blather. This has to be the only forum in the civilized world which allows
such claims to be perpetrated without receiving equal portions of ridicule
and abuse. Can it not be stopped?"
I think this reasoning is wrong, since it smacks of "acceptance by reputation".
How about this
argument:
Some time ago I asked a lot of physicists about why an apple falls from a tree
downwards, and all roads led to Isaac Newton. Frankly, I was pleased to see all
those skeptics question Newton's results and put his activities into
perspective. At the risk of sounding Pharisaic, I believe that the advance of
serious research in physics is severely hindered by such blatant blather. This
has to be the only forum in the world which allows such claims as Newton's to be
perpetrated without receiving equal portions of ridicule and abuse. Can it not
be stopped?
The point is of course, that while Newton originated Newtonian physics, and thus
it is right to expect all references to this field to lead back to him, at the
time he did his research he was a nobody just like Eric Drexler. This was
unimportant at that time, since his ideas were judged on MERIT, not on
reputation. I am myself ill-equiped to judge Eric's work, but would be VERY
careful in deciding that it "deserves ridicule and abuse" at all. Newton had a
much harder time at propagating his ideas than Drexler today. In appreciation of
this fact, scientists of olden times usually were more careful and methodical in
judging new ideas (not always, to be sure!). Maybe it is time to try and look at
the facts and claims instead of at the names of proponents of such claims?
To paraphrase, this must be the only forum in the world (claiming to be
scientifically
based) which allows such careless and unjustified disregard, abuse and ridicule
of new ideas
(whether they be of merit or not) without receiving equal portions of ridicule
and abuse. So
there!
Jacob Levy
jlevy.pa@xerox.comjbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (01/30/88)
Nanotechnology isn't a silly idea, but it's very difficult to
see how to get started on working at the molecular level. Drexler's
popular books don't offer too much insight on what to do first, but
they give some idea of what can be accomplished, and what to worry
about, if it starts to work. Neither physics nor biochemistry seem
to forbid much of what Drexler proposes.
Nanotechnology is more of an engineering problem than is AI.
We really have no idea what a general-purpose artificial intelligence
would look like, what its components would be, or even roughly what
its complexity would be. We cannot today draw a block diagram of
an artificial intelligence with any confidence that a system built
to that diagram would work.
Nanotechnology is different. We could begin to design
nanomachines today, and Drexler has indeed roughed out some designs.
But our manfacturing technology is not equal to the task of building them.
This is classically the sort of problem that will yield to money
and determination. Like the original Manhattan Project and the Apollo
program, much research and massive engineering efforts will be necessary.
To justify such an effort, it will be necessary to demonstrate that
something can be accomplished with this technology.
I therefore put the question "what nanomachine can we build first?"
What can we build with current bioengineering technology? Can some
simple mechanical component be fabricated? It need not be useful.
It need not be very complex. But if one part can be fabricated,
a beginning will have been made. And other work will follow. Rapidly.
John Nagle