[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Chris Phoenix]

Robin Hanson wrote (and BCC'd to me--thanks!):
> Given the way this plays out, the studies
> they actually do of social implications will explicitly exclude all
> scenarios that they think have anything to do with the declared
> impossible dangerous nanobots.

Yes, I think you're very likely right.  And that avoidance could
backfire in the short term, and be quite dangerous in the long run.

There's another factor that is probably increasing public--and
scientific--fear of nanobots/assemblers.  I just read a paper by Michael
Lissack: http://emergence.org/redefinition.pdf that describes the way
people respond to unfamiliar concepts.  In general, people map the
concept to the nearest "glom": a fixed and primitive set of
associations.

Now let's apply this.  An assembler is a small device, active, made of
stiff parts with a stiff shell (association: chitinous), moves around,
has stereotyped behavior, can sneak into objects and corrupt or eat
them, can reproduce... need I go on?  It's a bug, plain and simple.  And
we know how people react to bugs.  (Note that "bug" also means
pathogen.)

There are a few people who get lots of practice at thinking with
precision about novel and unfamiliar concepts.  These people are capable
of refusing to glom new concepts, and instead treating them as
"indexicals"--terms that must be interpreted with precision--and working
till they figure out the intended meaning.  For example, those who make
a point of reading science outside their discipline will be continually
confronted with new jargon that must be interpreted carefully.  An even
stronger and more common example: each and every symbol in a computer
program is an indexical, so programmers must become very good at
figuring out indexicals.  But it seems safe to assume that most people
will not be good at this--when confronted with new concepts, they will
form gloms all over the place, and pick the easiest interpretation as
Lissack explained.

Even most scientists will not have much experience in overcoming
glom-type thinking.  In their own sub-field, they know all the jargon
and concepts, and can think with precision--as long as nothing new comes
along.  This phenomenon will be familiar to anyone who's tried to
communicate with scientists about something new.

It's worth noting that molecular nanotech has found good acceptance
among programmers and polymaths, and poor acceptance elsewhere.  Most
descriptions of MNT have failed to take into account the glom-thinking
process of the audience.  And so the descriptions evoked our ancient
fear and revulsion toward bugs.  This may have been a major spin
mistake.

Now that we know nanofactories are easier and more efficient than
assemblers, we may be able to move away from the insect-visions of
earlier MNT discussion.  It should be noted that bugs aren't the only
unfortunate association waiting to be glommed to.  The story of the
Sorcerer's Apprentice--runaway unstoppable productivity--goes back to
ancient Egypt.  Communicating about MNT without evoking fear-ridden
gloms will take quite a lot of care.

Chris

--
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org