• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nanotechnology. An upcoming boom to mankind or bane?

S

SoylentGreen

Diamond Member
I place this in HT since I'd like any persons on the forefront of researching this technology to please divulge your wealth of knowledge.

Yes, mini machines at the cellular level will herald repairing just about any malady that can affect man.

What I am thinking of most is the nefarious purposes that can be instituted with such devices.

For example take your self replicating micro machines and for simplicities sake have them disassemble DNA. That's only one application and of course if they could be spread it would be disastrous and could quite possibly destroy every single living being on this planet.

I've given a doomsday scenario; can you bolster or refute it?

Discuss.
 
I think almost everyone working on nanotechnology agrees that the machines you are talking about can not be built, simply put they would be violating the laws of thermodynamics. There have been a few papers about this.

You can make very tiny machines, but no that tiny.

This story has been floating around in the media for some time now, about a year ago I went to a conference where a whole session was dedicated to trying to figure out how to explain nanotechnology to the general public.
The "nanomachines" you are talking about is a good example showing that the communication between scientists and the public is not working very well right now.
 
"The "nanomachines" you are talking about is a good example showing that the communication between scientists and the public is not working very well right now."

I would agree with this statement. Many scientists are actually quite upset with this mis-interpretation (that you have said) of replicating nanomachines.

I belive the whole confusion began when people heard replicating. I don't know for sure, but I gather they must have just thought that these nanomachines would replicate exponentially and eventually take over the world (or something).

The real thing is that individual molecules would act as robots. Assembly lines if you will to reproduce and create more efficient things. They wouldn't reproduce themselves, per se, instead they would replicate to form something else. Say a computer, or a watch, and hopefully into machines to cure disease. They wouldn't function as you said, to eat your DNA.

The problem with replicating nanomachines, however, is that it is virtually impossible, by todays science, to produce and replicate molecules atom by atom. You can't just place atoms next to eachother physically and hope they react accordingly chemically to produce the things you want.

The idea of replicating nanomachines is quite fascinating, but it works nothing as you have said.
 
Even if we one day manage to produce self replicating nanomachines it is quite likely they will require a very selective envirnment in which to function. Critical factors in this envirnment might include: temp, pressure, specific energy source, available chemical components and catalysts in proper proportion, electrolytes, etc.. It may even be necessary to create a sequence of envirnments to effect a sequence of construction stages. If there is no natural envirnment with the proper qualities, it cannot exit in the wild as a runaway process.
 
I think it's a bit short sighted to say that versatile, self replicating nano-machines are impossible. After all, prions are, in effect, self-replication molecures albeit requiring a rather complex supporting structure. Im sure we COULD make a nanomachine which works in a rather similar way to prions.
 
You have to define what you mean by a "machine". Of course we can create molecules that can perform various tasks in the human body (we already do, it is called medicine).
However, the ideas that have been floating around in the media has been centered on "tiny-robots" with some sort of independence (I guess you could call it a limited form of A.I.), you tell the machines "destroy the cancercells" and then you inject a few hundred of them in the blood and they find the cancer cells on their own. This is a unrealistic scenario.
 
mind you, theres also a theory going around that mankind will fall to the machines. apparently the human brain puts out 10 ergs per second per gram. it said that "the Pentium processor" (I dunno which one) put out 10 billion ergs per second per gram. and there was some stuff backing it up about the age of man starting to fall to the age of machines around 2100. (starting).

I think that's horsewash, but its something to consider, because nanotechnology is starting to become more and more advanced. the instant we start delving into a true AI, that can respond to any situation, adaptto it, and communicate with most anything, as we humans can then I think we should be worried.
 
But the the first A.I. will hardly be 90 nm big, will it? So what has that got to do with nanotechnology?
 
there are two things being discussed here...

nanotech and AI. however, the primary topic of this thread seems to be machines taking over the world...

nanotech and AI have nothing to do with each other. AI is remotely related to machines taking over the world.

nanotech: this will allow for smaller machinery. the intermolecular forces involved pretty much prevents most molecular level manipulation by such machinery. however, cellular surgery is possible. one such application is invetrofertilization by means of nanobots. these nanomachines allow for much smaller implementations of existing micromachines. the application of nanobots which is used to repair or whatnot much like what has been shown in movies and television shows is decades away.

AI: few innovations have been made here. most have to do with the speed of processors and controllers getting faster. there has been few innovations in terms of the actual science behind AI development.

will machines take over the world: obviously there is already a high human dependence on machines. however, this does not make machines the dominant form of consciousness on this planet. of course, it is possible for some AI to overtake humanity. but the probability of that happening is along the lines of the dinosaurs returning as the dominant life form.

we're not as smart as we think we are, nor are those that we make.
 
Once the technology is able to process incredible amounts of information it is only a matter of time until a simple A.I. will be able to teach itself up to the levels that will surpass human intelligence. I recently read an article where a simple AI was programmed into some robots and their only directive was to "escape". Well escape one of them did, all the way into the building parking lot. I wish I could find the article.

If a processing unit is given the tools to think above its programming and achieve goals it is going to happen sooner or later.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top