[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Robin Hanson]

On 11/11/2003, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> > Would the mildest versions of nanotech really, by themselves, induce
> > superhuman AI?  It is not obvious.
>
>I assume the word "nanotech" here means MNT.  And MNT becomes
>interesting when it becomes capable of exponential manufacturing.

We had been explicitly distinguishing several possibilities short of
quickly reproducing nanotech factories.

>We don't know how powerful the algorithms might get.  If you put enough
>crunch power in a box, and run an evolutionary system on it, you might
>indeed get a system that could be amazingly efficient at discovering new
>science and technology.  But there's a lot of supposition here.

And that's putting it mildly.

> > >What does it take to produce a good meta-designer? A robust morphogenetic
> > >code, an evolutionary system, a good nanoscale simulator, and lots of
> > >computronium to run the above. As embarrassingly parallel as they come.
> > >And that's about the only metainvention you need to make.
> >
> > And how damn hard is it to have "lots" of "robust" "good" items like these?
>
>Are you questioning the ability to build such a system fault-tolerant?

I'm much more concerned about the robustness of the code.

>...  I'd like to float a definition here.  An "unlimited-sum
>transaction" is one in which the benefit to one (or both) of the parties
>is much higher than the cost, and is not correlated with the cost.
>I argue that ... commercial trading is incapable of dealing
>adequately with unlimited-sum transactions.

The liquids I drink over the next few days are worth millions to me, as I'd
die without them.  Their cost is far lower, and uncorrelated with the value
I place on my life.  So you say that commercial trading can't deal with
getting me liquids?



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323