[extropy-chat] Why no assembler design?

[Dan Clemmensen]

Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:47:12PM -0500, Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> > 
> > This in turn means that your [Hal's]problem statement is not quite correct. We 
> > should nto try for a complete design as a proof of concept and an 
> > inducement. Rather, we should be specifically trying to generate a range 
> > of assembler designs that may be achievable using simpler tools. If we 
> > keep generating valid assembler designs, perhaps we will find one that 
> > is buildable. Thus, we do not want the best assembler. Instead we want 
> > an assembler that can be built, no matter how poor this assembler is, as 
> > long as this assembler can build a better assembler.
> > 
> > Put it another way: the bootstrap problem is the only hard problem.
> > 
> > In particular, we do not need an sssembler that can operate in a hostile 
> > envoronment. We are free to pick any arbitrary environment for the 
> 
> Unless you're trying to build a weapon ;)
It doen't matter what I'm trying to build. This is the preliminary bootstrap assembler. A hand-cranked wooden lathe, which we then use to build a brass lathe, which we then use to build a steel lathe, which we then use to build a rifle.
> 
> > bootstrap, as long as we can create that environment using macro- or 
> > micro- technology. Create the environmant, build the assembler using 
> > micro techniques, and then use the assembler to build a more robust 
> > assembler that can operate in more general environment.
> > 
> > For example, assume that the bootstrap assembler is built from nanotubes 
> >[...]
> > 
> > Here is a possible bootstrap sequence:
> > [...]
> 
> There are many designs possible. You could use a dip-pen lithography of [...]
> 
> This is off the top of my head, there must be zillions of other variants.

I suspect that there are many potential approaches to building the first primitive assembler, and furthermore I suspect that you, Hal, Robert, and Chris, at least, are more up to date than I am. That's not the point. The point is that we should focus on building that very first primitive assembler, and more specifically on finding a design and a construction method that is achievable starting from today's base. It does not matter how crude, or slow, or expensive the bootstrap assembler is, as long as it can build something better than itself. We only need one of them. (More specifically, it only needs to succeed once.)
>  
> > Diamondoid-producing nanotube factory. [...] 
> You can separate higher diamondoids from natural sources. It should be
> possible to functionalize their surface to make them sticky, and use
> nanorobotics to map a library and assemble those which are complementary.
>  

My example is very sketchy and not well analyzed. IT was more intended as an example of a progression. There are two critera for the bootstrap assembler: It must be buildable without using an assembler, and it must be able to build the next assembler in a progression. (We can and should state both criteria with more rigor.) Just as my "primitive nanotube-based assembler" may be a poor choice to satisfy the buildability criterion, my progression may be a poor example of the correct progression from the nanotube assembler.

The point is to agree that the bootstrap assembler is the best goal to concentrate on now, and that the two critera are a good way to focue the effort.

Drexler spend most of "Nanosystems" exploring Diamondoid nanotechnology in depth, and then sketched out some bootstraps. We have some new bootstrap approaches to explore that may be superior. This is where the effort needs to be spent.

I've been away from this for the last five years. I apologize if I am re-hashing old ground.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reply
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 207 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20031119/070ff5e2/attachment.bin>