[extropy-chat] pest-devouring automaton

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Jeff Medina wrote:

> This is such a bioLudd argument, I'm baffled by its appearance.

This is such a technofashist response, I'm baffled by its appearance.
 
> Of course this technology can and hence may well be turned to some
> nasty use by a sadistic killer. The very same argument applies to real

What's the legitimate use for a robot that hunts and devours deer?
Artificial predators to keep down herbivore population, great. Let's build
them. System security being what it is, I can see armies of zombied robots
making a nice bloody mess from a bunch of Boy Scouts.

> AI. Are you quite against the development of AI as well? After all, a
> tweak here and there in a moral subroutine, and a real AI can kill

"Moral subroutine", eh. Maybe not even "3 Laws safe", heavensforbid.
You probably find Minsky cutting edge, too.

> many more humans than a roving metal mountain lion.

Exactly. Which is why building a human-equivalent AI is an even dumber idea
than a cannibal Terminator.
 
> Building a variety of digestive systems may give us insight into the
> human digestive system, or insight into how to improve it and thereby

Nope, it's a bacterial fuel cell.

> make ourselves better off. (BTW, does anyone know the relative

Nope; that's uploading.

> efficiency of methanol-burning as compared with biological digestion?)

The point of methanol is that there are no trees brimming with methanol sap,
neither animals with methanol blood coursing through their veins. (Also,
methanol is cheap and ubiquitous).

However, http://www.minatec.com/minatec2003/act_pdf/4_THURSDAY_Patillon.pdf
says current DMFC prototypes have 85% efficiency.

Compare that to http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/webmodules/ATPEfficiency.htm

Robots can be put into hibernation with basically zero metabolism. No such thing
with higher animals.
 
> But, aside from that knowledge-based reason to pursue more
> biologically realistic robots, I quite agree with the examples

Biologically inspired robotics is just great. Just, don't make it hunt, kill
and digest live animals, and all is dandy.

> mentioned earlier by spike. Technological progress will and should
> march on to better society, and ultimately make life safer and more

Technology per se has no ethics, its use has. You can use nuclear energy to
move a mountain to prevent a catastrophe, or to nuke a city. 

I'm sure you can see a minor difference here.

> comfortable, carnivorous-robo-phobia and other little kid comic book
> nightmares aside.

You must be reading different little kid comic books than me. In mine, CIA
uses Hellfire missiles from Predator drones to assassinate people driving in
cars in Yemen, and processes Afghani insurgents to shredded meat in nice PIR
view, with high-speed guns from an airborne platform hovering outside of 
earshot. Judging from their movements, the poor fuckers never knew what hit
them.

Oh yeah, if you're so fond of using animals for fuel I'm sure this one

	http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html

will give you a stiffy. Enjoy.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050101/5991c77e/attachment.bin>