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

[Brett Paatsch]

Chris Phoenix wrote:

> 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. 

I liked your paper. I'm glad you published it. 

>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.

Not just creativity, also resources including human resources
as anciliary staff to do things such as search the net and patent
databases etc for what is currently know.  The NSA and similar
organisations have a fair amount of state of the art computing
grunt to throw at problem solving as well. 

To me the Manhatten project, or to be more precise my 
understanding of it which may be a different thing, was successful
not mainly because of the brilliance of Openheimer but because
of the formidable managment skills of General Groves. 

Perhaps if my own forte was theoretical physics I'd take a 
different view, but even Openheimer, (again as I understand him)
was a manager of people rather than just a scientist in the Manhattan
project.

> So  they're likely to have already thought of whatever you
> describe. 

Technologically perhaps. Perhaps not. Independent minds can
be creative because they are independent and sometimes irreverent
about the knowledge domains they go into not because they are
necessary possessing the highest IQs. 

> 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?

We cannot know what is in all the labs, I guess that seems pretty
obvious as we cannot know what creativity resides in each other
heads and into what areas of inquiry that creativity is directed. 

We can know something of our own creativity and we can network
perhaps more effectively if we let others see what we are doing, but
perhaps it is not all others.  Perhaps a rifle shot rather than a shot
gun approach to knowledge sharing and mutual empowering is 
warranted. I'm not sure. It may be a case of horses for courses. 
 
> > 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 find the good buy/ bad guy dichotomy all that compelling to be
honest because I don't think the folks we consider bad guys think that
that is what they are. 

One mans terrorist really does seem like another mans freedom fighter.

[Sorry got to go.. Brett]

> 
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat