[extropy-chat] Re: Social Implications of Nanotech

[Robin Hanson]

On 11/15/2003, Chris Phoenix wrote:
>Before the technical stuff, a meta-issue:
>It's a common effect of human psychology that two people will annoy each
>other in symmetrical ways.  We seem to have run into that here.
>I thought I was explaining in straightforward logic why certain system
>configurations were unlikely in practice.  You asked me "not to assume
>everyone who disagree with you is an idiot".

Sorry; I didn't mean for that to connote that I was annoyed.  I meant to
emphasize the need to consider the views and assumptions of others.

>Having read this complaint and remembered the psychology feature, I now
>suspect you were trying to explain in straightforward logic why my
>definition of "unlimited-sum transaction" was not usable.  But at the
>time, I read your example of million-dollar water as
>condescending/snide.

Sorry again; straightforward logical explanation was indeed was my goal.

> > >Is there any reason such a thing would not be capable of producing a
> > >copy of itself?  ... Is there any reason such a thing would be slow?
> >
> > The whole point here is to be able to do economic analysis on this topic
> > without having to settle all of the technical disputes that still rage.
> > You are arguing that there's really only one interesting scenario to
> > consider, but clearly many other people believe that ....
>
>It's an interesting question, how much pruning to apply to the range of
>scenarios.  If you become convinced that a scenario is implausible, is
>it your duty to prune it ASAP?  ...
>But if it's appropriate for you at this stage to refrain from
>considering plausibility, then you can ignore a large fraction of what I
>said in my earlier messages. ...
>As far as I know, there are two main technological scenarios.  The first
>one is what the NNI is promoting. ... some new products and
>applications.  Eventually (~4 decades?), when we learn how to handle
>self-assembly, this gives us a handle on more complex components and
>some system integration.  But [not] integrated general-purpose production
>... the second technological scenario is the MNT one, and as far as
>I'm aware, it always assumes autoproduction (= self-replication, but
>without the "life" connotations) very early in the game (due to
>technological necessity), and frequently also assumes a fast takeoff
>from "assembler breakthrough" to "flood of products." ...

I said from the start that the reason I started this conversation is that
in a few weeks I will participate in an NNI conference on the social
implications of nanotech.  So I definitely need to take their scenarios
seriously.  I'd also like to discuss scenarios like you prefer (though
perhaps because of that they won't actually let me talk and won't
invite me again).  And I'd like to discuss these in terms of their
economic implications.

So what I really want is to break the gulf between these very different
views into component assumptions, expressed in economic terms.  This
allows compromise and debate in the form of "I buy these assumptions but
not those", and positions held can be more easily translated into
scenarios with intermediate social implications.

>So if you want a range of scenarios that have been proposed, you have
>two variables: When does MNT develop (2008 to 2060, with ultra-powerful
>computers 3 months to 3 years later), and how long after that do we get
>general-purpose manufacturing (3 months to [at a guess] 10 years later).
>... Just thought of a third dimension: the cost of fabrication. I expect
>that even early devices will come in under $100/kg, and quite possibly
>less than $1/kg, but it's conceivable that it could be much higher. In
>addition to technical assumptions, there are quite a few policy options,
>Above, in the discussion leading to the two dimensions of variability
>for scenarios, was my best understanding of the differing *technical*
>assumptions that people are making--and how to unify them, by
>recognizing that something similar to MNT will happen eventually whether
>or not dry nanomachines work, but if it's far enough out it will blend in.

I'm having trouble parsing your text into an itemized list of assumptions.
And some of the assumptions I can identify have to do with how the
self-replication scenario plays out, rather than how it shades into others.
My last post of Nov 11 gave my attempt a list of bridging assumptions;
I'll post my current version of that as I post this.

>...  I'd actually rather hear what you think about the
>canteen in the desert.  I'm not questioning whether it can be viewed in
>terms of economics; but can it be viewed in terms of market?

I teach law and economics and a standard issue there is whether to enforce
contracts between someone lost in the desert and someone else who agreed
to give him water for some enormous sum.  Such contracts are not actually
enforced, on the basis that monopoly pricing would lead to low quantity,
i.e., some people would die from inability to pay, but the counter-argument
is that enforcing them encourages more people to look for people to save.
I'm not sure if this addresses your "market" question though.

> > .... compared to many claims made for discontinuities induced by
> > nanotech, computers were a pretty smooth transition. .... overall
> > computer tech progress has been relatively steady.
>
>The underlying hardware, yes; the applications have been somewhat more
>punctuated.  Look how quickly the web grew.  Or the difference
>spreadsheets made to the business world.

Agreed.

>...  The criticism of MNT theory has been of such low
>quality, and people are so willing to believe blanket assertions without
>testing them for plausibility or relevance, that by now I don't worry
>too much about panels of experts.  ...

If you care about what other people think who might listen to these
experts, then you might want to try to convince those experts.  In which
case you need to state to them as clearly as possible, in terms they are
familiar with, and in a style they can respect, how you come to disagree.


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