DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP (06/16/87)
The recent discussion of the $6M man reminded me of an oddity which someone out there in Net-land might be able to clarify. Early one morning on NPR (National Public Radio) I was surprised to hear a feature from someone at the MIT AI Lab entitled Nano-Engineering. I hasten to add that it was several months ago, but _not_ on April 1st, although the following synopsis may lead you to believe such. The general thesis was a genetic engineering exercise whereby a little genetic robot would be created to "assemble" genes. The really intersting part was the observation that since these things would naturally be very small, their first assignment would be to assemble clones of themselves. Recall that I said this was early in the morning, but I did check with another NPR fan in our office who also heard the same feature. Can anyone confirm (a) that this was perpetrated and (b) that it came from MIT? David Smith - DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU
hamscher@ht.ai.mit.EDU.UUCP (06/18/87)
Date: 16 Jun 1987 09:10-EDT
From: DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU
The recent discussion of the $6M man reminded me of an oddity
which someone out there in Net-land might be able to clarify. Early
one morning on NPR (National Public Radio) I was surprised to hear
a feature from someone at the MIT AI Lab entitled Nano-Engineering.
* * *
Can anyone confirm (a) that this was perpetrated and (b) that
it came from MIT?
Its proponents call it Nanotechnology. The most well known spokesman
seems to be Eric Drexler, who has written a book about it called
"Engines of Creation." I think it's from MIT Press. Below I have
included an announcement of a two day symposium that was held during
IAP (Independent Activities Period, known as "January" to the world
outside MIT). As you can see from the header of the
message, there is a mailing list called nanotechnology@oz.ai.mit.edu,
or, from outside MIT a better bet would be to try
nanotechnology@ai.ai.mit.edu.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 02:35 EST
From: Christopher Fry <cfry@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Nanotechnology Symposium
To: nanotechnology@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU, MACROMOLECULES-MIT@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU,
ROBOTICS-SEMINARS@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU, *BBOARD@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU
Exploring Nanotechnology
An IAP 87 Symposium
All technology rests ultimately on our ability to arrange atoms.
Foreseeable technological advances will enable us to build devices
to atomic specifications. This "nanotechnology" will have profound
consequences, forcing a reevaluation of our expectations regarding the next
several decades. In the symposium, we will explore paths to the
development of nanotechnology, consequences of the technology in
various disciplines, and we will critically examine the premises of
these assertions via panel discussions which will include experts
in several fields.
Tuesday, 20 January 1987, 10-250
10:00 - 11:00 am Overview: Eric Drexler (BS '77, MS '79)
will describe various paths to the
development of replicating assembler systems, capable of manufacturing
complex components to atomic specification. Some potential
applications, such as mechanical nanocomputers, and their
consequences will be discussed. We strongly recommend you attend this talk
in order to follow the subsequent discussions in context.
11:05 - 11:45 am Materials Science and Protein Engineering: Kevin Ulmer
will discuss the protein engineering techniques which could be used to
create new alloys and composites. New materials made
to atomic specifications promise order of magnitude improvements in
performance. One consequence is space transportation costs equivalent
to current airline costs.
Noon - 1:00 pm Lunch Break
1:00 - 1:40 pm Panel Discussion I.
A panel of experts will discuss the technical
feasibility of various aspects of nanotechnology, including consideration
of the time frame. A panel moderator will take questions from the
audience.
1:45 - 2:25 pm Economics: David Friedman
will discuss the consequences of
nanotechnology, such as extreme decentralization of the economy.
On-site, personal manufacturing stations could virtually eliminate
mass production. What will happen to our economy during the transition
to this technology?
2:30 - 3:10 pm Society, Technology and Policy: Arthur Kantrowitz
will share his thoughts on
how society may be affected, and what kind of future may be in store
for the human race. How can our government adapt to this new technology
and what legislation, if any, should be enacted to control its development?
3:10 - 3:25 Break.
3:25 - 4:05 pm Thought and Intelligence: Marvin Minsky
will speak on intelligent
systems which could employ Avogadro's number of parallel nanocomputers.
Achieving artificial intelligence by mimicking human brain architecture
is a rapid route to true AI with nanotechnology.
4:10 - 4:40 pm Concluding Points: Eric Drexler
will wrap up by describing life
extension possibilities using cell repair machines.
4:10 - 5:00 pm Panel Discussion II.
A panel of experts will discuss the
societal implications of nanotechnology, including steps we might take
to avoid some of the dangerous consequences of nanotechnology. A panel
moderator will take questions from the audience.
Thursday, 22 January 1987 7:30 - 10:00 pm Advanced Topics:
NE43-773
As an extension to the symposium we will hold a special session
during the regular meeting time of the MIT Nanotechnology
Study Group. We will discuss, in depth, critical issues regarding the
development of nanotechnology such as control of assemblers, guidance
of technology development, and prevention
of abuse. Eric Drexler will be with us. Recommended only for those who
attend the symposium on Tuesday, or who have attended NSG introductory lectures
in the past.
Sponsored by the MIT Nanotechnology Study Group,
the Dept. of Applied Biological Sciences,
the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
the Office of the Associate Provost,
the Graduate Student Council,
the Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering,
and the Dept. of Political Science.
Special thanks to the AI Lab for its generous support of this activity.
Contact cfry@@MIT-OZbnevin@CCH.BBN.COM.UUCP (06/22/87)
There is a good summary article in _Whole Earth Review_ (Spring 1987),
pp. 8-14: A Technology of Tiny Things, Nanotechnics and Civilization,
by K. Eric Drexler. The bio in the footnote at the beginning says
Drexler got his SB from MIT in interdisciplinary science, followed by a
Master's in Aeronautics and Astronautics also at MIT. Recently he
founded the MIT Nanotechnology Study Group to develop the science
described in the article and book. Some excerpts from the former:
Whatever is, is obviously possible. Life is. Therefore that
demonstrates the possibility of molecular machines able to build
other molecular machines--the essence of both life and a new
method called nanotechnology. . . .
Whatever obeys natural law is also possible. Science now
understands the laws of ordinary matter and energy well enough
for most engineering purposes. Nanotechnology will enable us to
build new kinds of things. Physical laws let us calculate what
some of these things will be able to do.
The basic idea of nanotechnology is straightforward. . . .
Molecular machines are simply machines made of molecular-scale
parts having carefully arranged atoms.
. . . Nanotechnology assemblers will be molecular machines that
grab reactive molecules and bring them together in a controlled
way, building up a complex structure a few atoms at a time.
. . .
There is no new science in nanotechnology, only new engineering.
The possibility of nanotechnology was implicit in the science
known over 30 years ago, though no one saw it then. During the
1940s and 1950s, biochemistry revealed more and more of the
molecular machinery of the cell. In 1959, physicist Richard
Feynman touched on a similar idea in a talk: he spoke of using
small machines to build smaller machines ( . . . and so on). He
suggested that the smallest machines would be able to "put atoms
down where a chemist says" to make a "chemical substance." But
Feynman didn't explain how these machines were to work, and said
they "will really be useless," because chemists will be able to
make whatever they want without them. Decades passed with
little followup.
[Molecular biology advanced, Drexler's work at MIT indicated in
winter of 1976 the possibility of "what we now call assemblers";
he describes several paths for evolution of nanotechnics from
present science and technology. --BN]
As you can see, the starting point will make little difference.
All roads lead to assemblers, and assemblers will let us make
almost anything we are clever enough to design.
. . .
In a world full of competing companies and governments, only
global disaster or global domination could block the advance of
technology. This seems to be a fundamental principle; if so, it
must guide our plans.
. . .
What can nanotechnology do for us? Almost anything we want, in
physical terms. Once we have the software to direct them,
replicating assemblers can build almost anything, including
more of themselves, without human labor. Because they will
handle matter atom by atom, as trees do, they can be as clean
as trees, or cleaner. They need not produce smoke or sludge or
toxic chemical byproducts.
. . .
One important application will be the further miniaturization of
computers. Detailed study shows that assemblers could build the
equivalent of a large, modern computer in about 1/1000 of the
volume of a typical human cell. This could be a mechanical
computer (they're easier to analyze than electronic computers),
but moving parts on this scale can be small and fast enough to
make the computer faster than today's electronic machines.
. . .
Drexler also writes at some length about the enormous potential for
danger and disruption of society and biosphere.
Our survival may depend on our ability to tell sense from
nonsense regarding a complex technology that doesn't exist yet.
The nonsense will be abundant, no matter what we do: any field
on the borders of science fiction, quantum mechanics, and
biology is well positioned to import a lot of prefabricated
crap; any field where experiments and experience aren't yet
possible is going to have great trouble getting rid of that
crap. When someone says "nanotechnology" and begins to expound,
beware!
. . . a political movement to deal with nanotechnology must be a
movement to guide advance, not to stop it. I've already argued
that attempts to stop it would be futile; here are some reasons
for thinking such efforts would be socially irresponsible.
I leave this and much more for the interested reader to follow up in the
Spring issue of WER.
(This same issue by the way has Shank's `Reality Club' contribution
on why math should not be taught in public schools. As you know from
his AI work, it cannot be because he dislikes math or is bad at it.)
Bruce Nevin
bn@cch.bbn.com
(This is my own personal communication, and in no way expresses or
implies anything about the opinions of my employer, its clients, etc.)GODDEN@gmr.COM (01/29/88)
Since I brought this topic up a short while ago, let me comment on David Smith's reply (following:) >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? Obviously, ailist IS a forum where ridicule and abuse is permitted. Interestingly, in his book Drexler calls for setting up public forums where ideas of alleged scientific merit can be scrutinized openly and subjected to ridicule if such is deemed appropriate. -Kurt Godden godden@gmr.com