I thought about particle beam defense against rogue nano back in 1987.
There are lots of infrastructure problems. But anything that
concentrates a high enough energy flux density ought to work as a "spot
eradicator". The remaining problem, as 'gene has recently pointed out,
is "What if you're not seeing spots?" :)
_My_ read on "active shields" remains that you are conflating two
things. Active shields don't have to be any smarter that land mines in
the containment case, or an immune system in the more general case. How
smart to make the immune system, and how to direct it, are very much
Central control of the entire world's immune system by a single AI? Show
me where Dr. D. says that, would you?
PS: Are you also checking www.nanodot.com? A fair amount of good stuff
John Marlow wrote:
> Yes; precisely. My read on, for instance, Drexler's
> active shield concept is that we hand over
> peacekeeping tasks to an AI which is equipped with
> weapons superior to all others. The moment that
> happens--no more checks or balances. If ti decides for
> reasons we are unable even to fathom that we're toast,
> we're toast.
> john marlow
> --- CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/11/01 8:47:21 PM,
> > firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > >Marlow's Paradox:
> > >
> > >“We cannot entrust our fate to machines without
> > >emotions, for they have no compassion; we cannot
> > >entrust our fate to machines with emotions, for
> > they
> > >are unpredictable.”
> > >
> > >Basically, we can't trust machines.
> > And what's different about people? We have checks
> > and balances in goverment, contracts and arbiters in
> > business, credit checks and gossip in personal life,
> > all
> > for good reason.
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT