CHAT ARCHIVE
[19:57] <@BruceK> Welcome Mike
[19:57] <Treder> Thanks, Bruce. Hi everybody.
[20:01] * BruceK Official Chat Start - Mike Treder, How Dangerous is Nanotech?
[20:02] <@BruceK> Mike Treder is Exe. Dir or CRN - Center For Responsible Nanotech
[20:02] <outlawpoet> center for responsible nanotech
[20:02] <outlawpoet> url?
[20:03] <@MichaelA> (Link: www.crnano.org)www.crnano.org
[20:03] <@BruceK> (Link: www.crnano.org)www.crnano.org
[20:03] <John_Ventureville> great
[20:03] <John_Ventureville> thanks
[20:03] <Treder> Let me start by saying that nanotech is not very dangerous now -- but in the near future, when MNT is developed, it could prove extremely risky.
[20:03] <@BruceK> Could you give the worst case scenario?
[20:03] <Treder> OTOH, the benefits clearly outweight the risks.
[20:04] <Jonesey> Mike, is there a risk specific to nanotech but not to technological advance in general? We're seeing airplanes being deployed as weapons, trucks as bombs, you name it. Isn't the issue more of why we're so angry at each other, since that'll spill over into whatever technology we develop?
[20:05] <Treder> Worst case, one nation other than the US develops MNT first. The US recognizes the potential loss of world leadership and nukes the other country. Or tries to, but it's too late, because MNT has already developed superior weaponry.
[20:05] <John_Ventureville> Mike, Is there a science fiction story/novel which you feel shows how you think things may/will develop?
[20:05] <Treder> I'll asnwer Jonesy first, then John.
[20:05] <John_Ventureville> ok
[20:05] <outlawpoet> Jonesey, Nanotechnological assemblers are one of the few technologies that can destroy the world 'accidentally', i suppose that's pretty unique.
[20:06] <Jonesey> yeah but how about all the stuff that can destroy it "intentionally"
[20:06] <Treder> Jonesy, MNT exacerbates the human problems you refer to, by making single humans or small groups potentially far more dangerous.
[20:06] <TCI> Its hard to say about nanomachines destroying the environment. We don't know how well they will work in an open system as opposed to something closed (a nanfactory, etc.)
[20:07] <John_Ventureville> I envision the governments of nations HEAVILY restricting MNT from their common citizenry.
[20:07] <Treder> John, no one yet has written a fully believeable novel about early MNT development. Chrichton's 'Prey' is mostly hogwash. Stephenson's 'Diamond Age' is excellent reading, but a little lean on science.
[20:07] <John_Ventureville> It will be homeland security times 100.
[20:07] <Jonesey> Mike, very true, but I'm not sure that doesn't apply to all sufficiently powerful technologies that we can develop
[20:08] <Jonesey> Ben Bova's "Moonbase" series has some ominous military/terroristic uses of nanotech
[20:08] <Treder> Yes, but MNT may arrive before AI or radical biotech.
[20:08] <@MichaelA> "Nanotechnology and International Security"; (Link:
http://www.csr.umd.e.../nanosec1.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.h...d/nanosec1.html
[20:09] <Crypsis> The idea that they can "destroy the world 'accidentally'", this seems absurd to an uninformed outsider of NT, how is this possible?
[20:09] <TCI> What does MNT stand for?
[20:09] <Jonesey> Heh, I just packed Crichton's "Prey" for a long flight tomorrow
[20:09] <@BruceK> Molecular Nanotech
[20:09] <TCI> Thanks
[20:10] <Treder> CRN hopes to see a collaborative international effort to administer MNT. There are ways to do it effectively. See our papers at (Link:
http://www.crnano.org/safe.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.crnano.org/safe.htm)http://www....no.org/safe.htm and (Link:
http://www.crnano.org/systems.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.crnano.org/systems.htm)http://w...org/systems.htm
[20:10] <John_Ventureville> why is "Prey" mostly hogwash? Or does it represent only what a truly mature nanotechnology could do?
[20:10] <@BruceK> MikeT, is there really a possibility that gray goo could destroy 100% of life on earth at one go?
[20:10] <@MichaelA> "Don't let Crichton's Prey scare you--the science isn't real"; (Link:
http://nanotech-now....y-critique.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://nanotech-now.com/Chris-Phoenix/prey...ey-critique.htm
[20:10] <Treder> MNT is the science that will lead to molecular manufacturing. And the closing stages of development may happen very quickly, and possibly soon.
[20:11] <TCI> If there were an accident, how would molecular nanoassemblers contaminate the environment? Won't these tiny particles break apart in the hostile environment?
[20:12] <Treder> Re goo, we think it could pose a significant problem, but will almost certainly not become an existential threat. Nanotech weaponry is much more dangerous. And it doesn't even have to be self-replicating to pose a serious threat.
[20:12] <Jonesey> I have to say that biotech is already leading to molecular manufacturing, however messy. Lot of danger there. I'm not sure nanotech that doesn't involve biotech is that much more dangerous to our species.
[20:13] <Treder> Yes, TCI, the threat of goo is overblown. Which is bad, because it distracts people from the much more serious real issues of MNT.
[20:15] <Crypsis> Treder: can we get to the best case scenario tonight as well? =]
[20:16] <TCI> When do you think we'll be able to implement MNT?
[20:16] <TCI> That is, are there any plans on the table.
[20:16] <Treder> Love to! MNT has the potential to solve many of the world's worst problems, including water shortage and the spread of infectious disease.
[20:17] <Treder> That's just a start, see more at (Link:
http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm)http://...rg/benefits.htm
[20:18] <Treder> CRN has just published a major study showing that MNT development will almost certainly occur very quickly after the first assembler/fabricator is developed.
[20:18] <EmilG> Hello, all. Mike, I met you briefly at the NYU event.
[20:18] <Treder> We think a realistic time frame is 2010-2015, but no later than 2020.
[20:18] <EmilG> Which brings me to the question I wanted to ask you, Mike ...
[20:19] <Treder> Our big development study is at (Link:
http://www.jetpress....anofactory.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofacto...Nanofactory.htm
[20:19] <EmilG> That's the time frame you give on the web site, and Chris's new paper details the bootstrapping we can do *once we have the first assembler* ... but you don't say anything about the path from here to the first assembler, or why we should expect that time frame.
[20:21] <Treder> What's happening now is that all kinds of enabling technologies are being developed. Ability to see and manipulate atoms and molecules at the nanoscale...
[20:21] <Treder> ...also software to manage the work going on at that level...
[20:21] <EmilG> But I still remain highly skeptical that a nano-assembler will emerge in the next 20 years.
[20:22] <Treder> ...it's all a work in progress, and as far as we know, there is no dedicated project for building an assembler, but we think it's inevitable that as time goes by and costs reduce and abilities increase, then someone will see the value of an investment.
[20:22] <@BruceK> Emil, there are already biological nano-assemblers.. just a matter of time.. no?
[20:23] <EmilG> BruceK: I know perfectly well that the theory of molecular nanotechnology is sound, and that Drexler's proposals are right. Contra Smalley et al.
[20:24] <Treder> Keep in mind that serious research into this field is still very young and not many people are working on it -- it's amazing that so much has already happened. So when a large nation decides to support a serious effort...
[20:24] <EmilG> But I just don't see anyone interested in molecular nanotechnology outside of a small group of Foresight folks.
[20:24] <Treder> AFAIK, you are right. We do wonder, though, about China...
[20:25] <haploid> EmilG: people who want fluid-proof pants.
[20:25] <@BruceK> I think the increase in funding by governments is telling...
[20:25] <EmilG> haploid: That's not real nanotechnology. BruceK: That's not real nanotechnology.
[20:25] <Jonesey> MNT already exists, albeit in messy biological form. getting cleaner with that new artificial virus from Venter's group
[20:25] <outlawpoet> haploid, I have fluid proof pants
[20:26] <outlawpoet> they rock.
[20:26] <Jonesey> get real, emilg
[20:26] <EmilG> Sorry if I sound confrontational, but I see nothing to indicate we'll get to an assembler in the next 20 years.
[20:26] <outlawpoet> teflon impregnated artificial fiber.
[20:26] <outlawpoet> they sold them at the GAP for a while.
[20:26] <Treder> I honestly hope you are right, Emil. That would make us breathe easier at CRN. Our fear is that the ability will arrive before the world is prepared to handle it safely.
[20:26] <@BruceK> MikeT.. will the assembler be derived from biolocial to man-made.. or a pure man-made?
[20:27] <@MichaelA> Mike: fantastic idea, translating your website into Chinese!
[20:27] <Jonesey> EmilG:You're chatting with a bunch of assemblers right now.
[20:27] <@BruceK> Jonesey.. i think he knows this
[20:27] <Treder> Could happen either way, Bruce. But we think dry nano has advantages and will probably get there first.
[20:27] <EmilG> Jonesey: I *know* that; see above. I know man-made assemblers, in theory, can work. I know Drexler is right.
[20:27] <Jonesey>
[20:28] <outlawpoet> dry nano meaning, fully artificial? or something else?
[20:28] <Treder> Fully artificial and designed.
[20:28] <Jonesey> in theory? all of the organisms that are harnessed now to produce specific molecules are, in my mind, a messy biotech.
[20:28] <Jonesey> nanotech wups.
[20:28] <EmilG> outlawpoet: Even with "wet" nano, the goal is to use wet nano to make dry nano.
[20:28] <Jonesey> and it keeps getting cleaner all the time. that seems to me the most promising path to what I think you see as "real" MNT
[20:29] <EmilG> Hmm. I would like to see a paper from CRN, similar to the bootstrapping paper, on getting from here to the first assembler (no matter how crude).
[20:29] <Treder> It appears that molecular manufacturing will most easily be done in a sealed vacuum within a nanofactory.
[20:29] <@BruceK> MikeT, do you give a % chance to the possibiltiy of a nano 911 within the next few decadeds?
[20:29] <Treder> Emil, the paper you describe is one of our next projects.
[20:29] <Treder> Ick, Bruce, what a creepy question.
[20:29] <EmilG> Treder: Cool. Did you see Hal Finney's recent post on Extropy, and Dan Clemmensen's response?
[20:30] <@BruceK> MikeT, it may help give this problem a focus
[20:30] <Treder> I don't want to give a % probability, but I do want to say the possibility is high enough that we MUST prepare -- or better yet, prevent.
[20:30] <Treder> Emil, I didn't see Hal's or Dan's posts. What did they say?
[20:30] <outlawpoet> Do you see a disconnect between the current theories of design, and the theories of fabrication? because I see a great deal of ideas of structures, and a many ideas on how to construct nanotech, but rarely studies on how the two interact.
[20:31] <outlawpoet> It seems that design should follow fabrication, because working at the scale is so hard.
[20:31] <Treder> Outlaw, I'm not sure I understand your question.
[20:31] <outlawpoet> well, there are lots of designs for joints and edges and engines and computers and such.
[20:32] <EmilG> Hal Finney's post: (Link:
http://forum.javien....x-LRJnNDQrSFUM' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=...Mx-LRJnNDQrSFUM
[20:32] <outlawpoet> but they don't seem to take into account what is easier and harder to construct.
[20:32] <Treder> Thx!
[20:32] <EmilG> Dan Clemmensen's response: (Link:
http://forum.javien....C-VWASA0M7MRMV' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=...cC-VWASA0M7MRMV
[20:32] <Jonesey> if enough people are mad at you and want to kill you, you're going down. the best way to cut the danger from MNT is to work on some serious global anger management.
[20:32] <Crypsis> heh
[20:32] <Treder> Both have value
[20:32] <outlawpoet> they're designs, without the kind of attention paid to the fabrication process that industrial engineers tend to do for example.
[20:32] <TCI> The possibility of an asteroid hitting Earth is extremely low, but it will happen sooner or later. Same with new technology - it inevitably will be used for brutal purposes, and like other risks, we must prepare to deal with it.
[20:33] <EmilG> Jonesey: Or Friendly AI
[20:33] <Treder> Outlaw, I think both design and fabrication have to go forward, as they can drive each other.
[20:33] <outlawpoet> it seems like the design of nanoscale components should follow theories of fabrication more than theories of design, but I don't see a great deal of exploration of that concept.
[20:34] <outlawpoet> like early machine tools being designed for the possible tolerances at that time.
[20:34] <outlawpoet> as tolerances decreased, different designs became feasible.
[20:35] <Treder> Right. We are pushing for more work on software design, that is CAD tools for MNT product design.
[20:36] <EmilG> Treder: Any idea what Drexler is doing these days?
[20:36] <outlawpoet> can current CAD tools be modified for work in molecular designs?
[20:37] <outlawpoet> or are the rules sufficiently different to require de novo interaces?
[20:37] <Treder> Well, Eric Drexler is on the Board of Advisors for CRN, so he spends at least some time advising us. Lately, though, he's been putting a lot of time into a debate with Richard Smalley which will be published soon.
[20:37] <Jonesey> what are they debating?
[20:38] <Treder> "Is MNT possible?"
[20:38] <Jonesey> haha what a dumb q
[20:38] <Jonesey> how can a living product of mnt ask this q?
[20:38] <Treder> Smalley still says no.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> This article: (Link:
http://www.wired.com...,59268,00.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128...2,59268,00.html
[20:38] <Jonesey> it's like asking if carbon life forms are possible.
[20:38] <Treder> And because he's a Nobel Prize winner, a lot of people listen to him.
[20:38] <Jonesey> well look in the mirror.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> "The only work focused on the goal (of molecular machines) is low-level, bootleg research being done by people in their spare time," Drexler said.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> I thought that sounded sort of odd for Drexler to say
[20:38] <EmilG> He's been debating Richard Smalley? I thought he sent an Open Letter to Smalley a while back and didn't get a response, and that was it.
[20:39] <EmilG> MichaelA: But it's true.
[20:39] <@MichaelA> Yet CAD software is constantly improving
[20:39] <Treder> Smalley responded offline, they had an exchange, and it will go public in about two weeks.
[20:39] <@BruceK> MikeT, would you mind answering a few questions about physical immortality?
[20:39] <Treder> OK.
[20:40] <@BruceK> first off.. do you think there's anything after death?
[20:40] <Treder> Not without cryonic suspension and restoration.
[20:40] <Jonesey> u signed up yet mike?
[20:40] <@BruceK> thus, one's consciousnes.. the self is lost forever.. right?
[20:41] <Treder> No, I don't think the technology is matire enough yet to work. But as I get older, I may change my mind!
[20:41] <Jonesey> haha
[20:41] <Treder> Bruce: Yes, the self is a function of the physical brain.
[20:41] <Treder> matire = mature
[20:42] <@BruceK> is the reason why you're working on nano is that you'd like to live longer?
[20:42] <@BruceK> or one of the reasons...
[20:42] <Treder> That's one reason. But even if I succumb to senseless death, I hope to make a contribution that will allow others to live.
[20:43] <@BruceK> that's kind of you
[20:43] <Treder> Aw, it's nothin'
[20:43] <@BruceK> what got you motivated to work with nano?
[20:44] <Treder> Nano has gthe potential to offer radical life extension, perhaps indefinite life -- but first we have to survive the introduction of MNT in the next 10-20 years, and it could get very rocky.
[20:44] * BruceK nods
[20:45] <@BruceK> but, it would seem to be smart to give a reason as to why we should live longer, no?
[20:45] <Treder> I've been interested in MNT and emereging technologies in general for many years. Then about a year ago, I met Chris Phoenix and something clicked. We share a similar outlook and motivation and decided to work together. So we founded CRN.
[20:46] <@BruceK> Excellent.
[20:46] <Treder> We we shoulf live longer? Because BEING DEAD SUCKS! See (Link:
http://www.incipient...n.com/dead.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.incipientposthuman.com/dead.htm...an.com/dead.htm
[20:46] <@BruceK> heh, that's right
[20:46] <EmilG> Is CRN your day job?
[20:46] <@BruceK> What would be CRN's crowning acheivment?
[20:46] <Jeremiah> i'd imagine dead people are pretty ambivalent about the whole mess.
[20:47] <Treder> Sorry I got excited, I meant -- "Why we should live longer?"
[20:48] <Treder> The crowning achievement of CRN would be the timely creation of a strong, stable, progressive international authority to oversee the safe development and effective administration of molecular manufacturing.
[20:48] <@BruceK> sweet.. nice goal.. i hope this is successful
[20:48] <Treder> So do we!
[20:48] <TCI> A UN for nanotech?
[20:49] <Jeremiah> seems rather non-libertarian. you think a lot of >H's would be down with something like that?
[20:49] <outlawpoet> that's a good point, do you see nanotechnology being helped by a UN resolution on the matter?
[20:49] <Treder> Something like that. We're working now with some people connected to the UN who are trying to establish a global science and technology information exchange. That might be a good start.
[20:50] <@BruceK> Is this what Drexler wants as well.. a overriding authority group for nano?
[20:50] <Jonesey> one world gov't for MNT? hmmmmm
[20:50] <Treder> I'm not a libertarian, although many >H are. But if someone can suggest a better alternative to our solutions that will work in the real world, I'm all ears.
[20:51] <Treder> I can't speak for Eric,
[20:51] <haploid> MNT ?
[20:51] * BruceK thinks we do need government intervention in some areas.. and nano is a good place..
[20:51] <@BruceK> Molecular Nanotech
[20:51] <haploid> k
[20:51] <outlawpoet> It seems like the most effective way to do it in general is to make MNT first, do it safe, and give it away for free.
[20:51] <Crypsis> (Link:
http://www.crnano.or...ossary.htm#MNT' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.crnano.org/crnglossary.htm#MNT)...lossary.htm#MNT
[20:51] <outlawpoet> then no one has any reason to develop it badly
[20:51] <Jonesey> I think the alternative is what is already happening. MNT is being pursued by various avenues, from the drive to miniaturize computers to biotech to drexler's nanomachines. I don't think central planning has a prayer of controlling all of those avenues and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
[20:52] <Treder> Wow, Crypsis, you're quick -- beat me to the punch!
[20:52] <Treder> YES YES YES -- Outlaw, that's exactly what we want!
[20:52] <@BruceK> nice
[20:53] <EmilG> Treder: What do you think about the intersection of AI and molecular nanotech?
[20:53] <Treder> Scary. MNT may make strong AI possible, and of course it's anyone's guess what happens after that.
[20:54] <Jonesey> strong ai exists now(humans) and yes it is very scary
[20:54] <Crypsis> Are we talking about something like an open source design forum?
[20:54] <Treder> <BruceK> nice
[20:55] <Treder> But humans are not superintelligence. And recursively improving strong AI will be. (probably)
[20:55] <EmilG> What do you think of Yudkowsky's efforts?
[20:55] <outlawpoet> heh, Yudkowsky
[20:56] <Treder> Open Source design forum -- Sure. That's what we've advocated in some of our papers.
[20:56] <outlawpoet> how respectable sounding. as if he isn't logged into this channel or something.
[20:56] <@BruceK> heh
[20:56] <@BruceK> Eliezer, we're talking about ya..
[20:57] <Jonesey> open source is problematic, cuts the greed incentive that drives much innovation and large scale manufacturing
[20:57] <EmilG> Heh heh.
[20:57] <@BruceK> we'll close up the Official Chat here in about 3min..
[20:57] <Treder> I hope someone can develop Friendly AI, because I like the sound of that much better than the alternative.
[20:57] <@BruceK> but feel free to mull about
[20:57] <outlawpoet> Jonesey, I'm not sure that's clear, some open source initiatives are strongly innovated.
[20:58] <outlawpoet> innovative
[20:58] <Jonesey> i'm just hoping someone can develop friendly human intelligence
[20:58] <@BruceK> Mike, you think ChrisP would be interested in joining us for a chat sometime down the road?
[20:58] <outlawpoet> but a major problem is that nanotech seems to require great initial investment.
[20:58] <outlawpoet> for physical development work, anyway
[20:58] <Treder> Yes, Jonesey, gotta have commercial incentive too. See our paper on Three Systems of Action at (Link:
http://www.crnano.org/systems.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.crnano.org/systems.htm)http://w...org/systems.htm Includes both.
[20:59] <Treder> Yes, Bruce, I'm sure Chris would be interested. He loves to talk!
[20:59] <John_Ventureville> militaristic governments now see the value in nanotech so I see progressing along, even if not in all the ways we might have hoped
[20:59] <@BruceK> great.. he has an open slot whenever
[20:59] <@BruceK> any Sun in Dec if he'd like
[20:59] <John_Ventureville> U.S., China, etc.
[20:59] <EmilG> Where will the Drexler-Smalley debate be published?
[21:00] <Treder> In Chemical and Engineering News, 12/1 -- unless something changes.
[21:00] <TCI> Good point, Ventureville. Like how nuclear power was demonstrated in the bomb, then the reactor to generate civilian energy.
[21:00] * BruceK Official Chat Ends
