[extropy-chat] Darwin Award

[jeffrey davis]

MY FINGERS SLIP[PED MID-REPLY. I RESUME BELOW AT "early prototyping and
shakedown stages.  But" ...

On 5/19/06, jeffrey davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Your response is rude, but more important you seem to ignore what I've
> written.  Check out below.
>
>
> On 5/19/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com > wrote:
>
> >
> >  On May 18, 2006, at 10:39 PM, jeffrey davis wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/18/06, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is not irrelevant as the type of technology available determines
> > > the costs of such a project and its  feasibility.   Sufficiently advanced
> > > automation to accomplish this task as well as sufficient resources and
> > > sustaining technology may require nanotechnology and AI.  I think that it
> > > will.  If you think otherwise then please make your case.
> > >
> > > - samantha
> >
> >
> > You're perhaps familiar with "Advanced automation for space
> > missions"(AASM), a seminal work on self-replication by Freitas et al.
> > sometimes referred to as the 1980 NASA summer study.  A quarter century ago
> > Freitas declared self-replication doable, and on the moon no less, with the
> > attendant severe restrictions on human on-site assistance.  So it's not
> > really my case but Freitas's.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Assuming sufficient resources, energy, control and logics that can't be
> > locally replicated without something like MNT, yes?
> >
>
>  No.  Who says they can't be "locally replicated" -- your use
> of "replication" here is totally bogus.  Your use of "locally" means you
> didn't read -- or understand -- what I wrote.  I'm talking about a
> self-replicating machine system HERE ON EARTH with humans at beck and call,
> as contrasted with the MORE DIFFICULT moon-based operation of AASM.
>
> What are you talking about here?  Have you read AASM?  There's no
> indication here that you have, or that if you have you understand what you
> read.  Talk about hand-waving.  It makes me think it's not even worth
> respondoing to someone so dishonest in discussion.
>
> That said.... Any project that is to be completed must have sufficient
> resources,...well duh.  And the resources required are easily with human
> reach.  For example a very small fraction of what's been spent on the Iraq
> war.  Do you know what that cost was estimated to be by Freitas in AASM?  If
> you did you would not question the sufficiency of resources.
>
> Current industrial infrastructure has sufficient everything to do what it
> does, else it wouldn't successfully complete anything.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Engineering-wise, it's about control systems. Our current industrial
> > system with humans in the loop has 100 percent closure.  Replacing the
> > humans requires control systems.
> >
> >
> >
> > How sophisticated are these likely to need to be to build infrastructure
> > capable of supporting large numbers of humans in a hostile environment.
> > Where is the case that we have that sophistication remotely in hand or will
> > have with less than major AI advancements?
> >
>
>
> What large numbers of humans in what hostile environment?  What in the
> world are you talking about.  You're certainly not talking about what I'm
> talking about.  Reducing the human factor in a Self-replicating Machine
> System (SRMS) means NOT having large numbers of humans participating
> anywhere.  Small numbers, yes, for maintenance and troubleshooting in the
> early prototyping and shakedown stages.  But (resumes here) fewer and and
> fewer humans as the system (SRMS) becomes ever more autonomous through
> upgrades and "training".
>



 And what hostile environments ?  I envision the SRMS in a desert
> environment -- lots of open cheap land with lots of sun and not much ecology
> to be disturbed -- but hey, it's just a flippin' desert.  The Mojave or
> Sonoran deserts aren't like the surface of the moon or Venus.  A trailer and
> some AC will take the edge off of any "hostility", and LA, Vegas, and Tucson
> are close by, though some might consider those to be "a hositle
> environment".
>

>
>
Since 1980 we've seen how many doublings of computational capacity, which
translates into vastly cheaper (and/or vastly more capable) control systems
components?   Using Moore's law as a rough guide, in the twenty-five years
since AASM, control element costs have fallen, or capability risen, by a
factor of 10e6.



Samantha writes:

Total hand waving.  Chip density and raw speed to not remotely directly
translate to increased autonomous control capabilities.

I respond:

Horseshit!  Twenty-five years of advances in IT means vastly more
capability.  And you know it.  You just can't stomach anyone who disagrees
with you.


Beyond that, the obstacles to implementation remain vision, creativity, the
size of the project(very big), and perhaps political will.  Personally, I
prefer to dispense with political will and go with vision and creativity.

That said, many smart folks still contend that the problem is "too hard".
Add the daunting size of the undertaking and it becomes a non-trivial matter
to mobilize enough folks to "Just give it a try and well see if it can be
done."  That's where the creativity comes in.


Thanks for for the rah-rah non-answer.

- samantha

To which I say, simply, your welcome and fuck you.
Jeff Davis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060519/19622c29/attachment.html>