[extropy-chat] Creativity and closed labs - was Self replicating computer programs ?

[Chris Phoenix]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:28:57 +1100, "Brett Paatsch" wrote:
> I'd be interested in others views on this. It would be real nice
> not to have to engineer in secret for fear of empowering the
> wrong folk but I am not sure that it is in fact as 'safe'? as you
> think.

I thought about this before publishing my nanofactory design paper.  My
conclusion was that engineering in secret helps the bad guys more than
it helps the good guys.  Openness helps the good guys, and (I think) to
a lesser extent the bad guys.  Secrecy allows the bad guys to help
themselves, while doing nothing for the good guys.

> .... 
> Government closed labs can be very well funded.
> ....

This argues that they can pay for a lot of creativity.  So they're
likely to have already thought of whatever you describe.  And, as you
point out, they won't talk about it.  So the question is: is it better
for the rest of us not to know what's in the labs, or to have some idea
through independent work?

> Against the idea that technology (particularly weapons and
> security related technology) is likely to be more advanced in
> some government closed labs is the counterpoint that people
> are extraordinarily bad at keeping secrets.

So they may invent something, not tell anyone--but a bad guy steals it
anyway.  A very bad outcome.  

> I don't know what the chances of the Exi list being watched with
> real interest AND understanding is, but I doubt that it is
> infinitesimal. Heck I'm watching it and I've got considerably
> less resources than a government ;-)

I think we should assume that everything is watched--and not only by
people in this country.  My paper may help a Chinese or Iranian MNT
program (if and when they start one--but they may have already).  On the
other hand, I figured that my paper was mostly a collection of tweaks on
Nanosystems, plus straightforward calculation--would not be hard for a
single person (who's reasonably bright, and has been studying
Nanosystems for a while) to do in a few months.  After all, that's how
it was done!  

I think it's even more important to talk about gray goo technology
openly, as long as it's done accurately.  Either the labs that are
interested in gray goo could easily think of your idea, or they
couldn't.  If they could, there's no harm in talking about it--at least
not from those labs, and that's who you seem to be worried about.  If
they couldn't, then they are interested in something very powerful that
they don't understand, and it's definitely a good idea to improve their
understanding before they develop something destructively stupid.

There are issues beyond secret government labs.  Talking (accurately!)
about MNT makes more people aware of the possibilities, and may spur
earlier development.  It may also spur earlier preparation.  It's not
obvious how these balance out--does the situation become more
survivable, or less?  Early development without preparation would be
bad.  But late development without preparation would be worse, because
it would go more quickly.  

There are too many actors and factors to predict all the effects of
publication.  So at this point, I think we have to fall back on basic
tenets: openness is generally a good idea.

Chris

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