Re: Nanobots Not Needed

From: Eivind Kjorstad (ekj_at_vestdata.no)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:34:24 -0000

Mike Treder, CRN wrote:

> SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk
> of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things
> "atom-by-atom" by molecular manufacturing.

Unfortunately this summary also summarises what is wrong with this
document. There's this story where two people discuss and it goes like
this:

Person A: No real 68-er eats fish-fingers.
Person B: But, person so-and-so *DOES* eat fish-fingers.
Person A: Yes, but no *REAL* 68-er eats fish-fingers.

Your blanket statement that nanobots are not part of modern plans for
building things atom-by-atom is similar. There are indeed plans for
building things atom-by-atom with the help of nanobots, but you would
presumably anser: Yes, but no *MODERN* plans include nanobots.

> Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between
> molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots.

And here is the second problem;

*WHICH* studies ? No, that doesn't need to be in the introduction, but
it should be SOMEWHERE. You make a lot of rather strong claims in this
document, and say that several of them are supported by studies. But
not a single time do you reference any of those studies.

> Nanobots have plagued nanotechnology from the beginning. Eric
> Drexler's "Engines of Creation" (1986), which introduced
> nanotechnology to the public, described certain kinds of tiny robots
> with limited capability. But in some fiction and fanciful speculation,
> these "nanorobots" or "nanobots" possess near-magical powers:
> transforming any object into anything else, acting as a universal
> medical device, or destroying anything they touch. This idea has
> caused confusion about the actual goals of advanced nanotechnology[1]
> research.

This I agree with. It's even quite understandable. A cursory reading of
Engines of Creation *does* indeed give you the impression the things
are nearly magical. You need to spend quite a bit of time before you
start discovering that there *are* limits, and what those limits are.

Not all of the devices described by Drexler are all that limited by the
way. He includes the general assembler. A general assembler as
described by drexler certainly could not in any way turn into grey goo,
but it's also not exactly a device with "limited capability".
 
> Studies have shown that most readers don't know the difference between
> molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots.

Again: Which studies ?

By the way, this is likely true for *any* modern technology.

> Molecular manufacturing is about tiny manufacturing systems. But those
> manufacturing systems are not nanobots.

More unsubstantiated claims. Why not ? For that matter, since you're
obviously trying to clear up misunderstandings, how come that nowhere
in the paper do you explain what exactly, in your opinion, a nanobot
is. You give examples of things that in your opninion are *not*
nanobots, but you fail to say why, and you fail to say what a nanobot
is. This doesn't clear up anything at all.

> No one worries about an inkjet printer crawling off the desk and
> stealing ink cartridges.

An inkjet printer is also not capable of producing a new inkjet-printer.

> Molecular manufacturing systems will be no more autonomous than
> inkjets.

More claims. Still no attempt to substantiate.

        Eivind Kjrstad

Quantcast