[extropy-chat] Self replicating computer programs ?

[Brett Paatsch]

Eugen Leitl wrote:

[Brett: Sorry I'm a bit short of time now to go over all I'd 
like to in this topic and other interest topics on the list but
here are some thoughts]

> [Brett]
> > > I think I'd rather test myself against someone else's
> > > "aggressive" weapon design then put my mind to the
> > > engineering problem of making and discussing a better
> > > weapon myself. - Until I can find a way of doing a
> > > logical end-run around the whole grey-goo

> You're making a logical mistake. Grey goo is not about
> logic, it's about security and technology/engineering.
> This is not something you talk about, this is something
> you need to address in simulators, tiger groups, and in field
> tests. In very practical hands-on setting, in other words.
> A whitehat ignorant of blackhats isn't.

Perhaps logical is the wrong word. But at present MNT
assemblers have at least one characteristic in common with
perpetual motion machines and that is that to date no working
models have been produced from any specification. Whether
MNT designs differ from perpetual motion machines designs
in having the characteristic of build-ability about them still seems
to be a nub of debate for most folk that talk about nanotech
away from the transhumanist and foresight subcultures.

Probably very few folk (generally not just on this list) would
have actually read Drexler's Nanosystems. I haven't read it cover
to cover either btw. I did read appendix A however in which 
Drexler talks about Methodological Issues in Theoretical Applied
Science (theoretical applied science being a term that he coined
himself and imo its unfortunately laboured terminology - I'd have
preferred applied theoretical science myself).

What I meant by logical and perhaps it is the wrong word is
that even in design the rules of contingency apply -or should if
one doesn't want to waste ones time - pace Euler.  

All designs for nanotechnological devices that violate the know
laws of physics are not going to satisfy the design limit of 
contingency. That is pretty obvious. 

What I was messing about with is that there are possibly other
types of design limitations that take into account the set of all
possible human design motivations. I think it is *pretty* safe
to assume for instance that no-one wants to build a grey goo
replicator (even as a weapon) that they can't control to the 
extent of ensuring that it does not turn them into grey goo. They
probably also don't want to turn their family and friends into 
grey goo or the environments in which they will need to live.
(Already -within the analysis of what would-be designers of
nano-weapons would want to build we are cutting down the
design space). My notion of a logical end-run around the whole
problem of grey-goo was that it just *might* be possible 
(assuming rational weapons designers - a big assumption but
itself a manageable one) to so much cut down the design
space of what would-be rational designers would want to 
build that when one added in the engineering constraints
of what they could build there *might* be no space left.

*If* that was the case we would have achieved something very
valuable. We would have done what I'd term end-run 
logical analysis around the problem and shown that it was not
a real problem in the real world at all. The reason it would be
useful to do that *if* that was the result and perhaps anyway
is that the finding would be useful *politically* to head off 
concerns raised by folk that may otherwise get into serious
fear-mongering aimed at heading off the development of 
MNT altogether. Folk such as the writers of The New Atlantas
that Greg Burch posted to the list recently.

Heres the link again 
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/keiper.htm

I was particularly interested in the above article that
referenced Robert Freitas views on the grey goo problem.

These folk at New Atlantas are becoming knowledgeable
enough to make some good pre-emptive political strikes 
against the emergence of MNT that may slow down its 
delivery times, imo. 

There is a period before any new technology is produced but
when it is known to be possible to some that is very difficult
to find basic development funding for. Because funding to do 
basic science generally comes from governments. VC capital
is typically less patient and there are good reasons for that, 
winning the hearts and minds of voters in the propaganda
wars is very important to the ultimate roll out times. 
  
Regards,
Brett