Re: NANO: Amazing, isn't it?

Eugene Leitl (
Sun, 2 Feb 1997 21:16:34 +0100 (MET)

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> > [...]
> Let's see, I am sure we will have a few KQb quite soon. I bet it will be

Hmm. If Anders says that, then there must be something to it. Being a
nit-picker: what are the prerequisites for QC? Hyperprecise structures
(molecular manufacturing)? Ultradeep temperatures (nanokelvins and below)?
Weird states of matter (like EBC &c)? Appropriate timing (full moon)?

> interesting, possibly useful but not lauch us into the singularity the
> night after the laboratory prototype works. Just because you can design
> proteins well doesn't mean nanotech and SI will appear next tuesday. Of

Well, if we have solved the iPFP, the molecular CAM is basically done.
The circuitry components are already there, all we need it to tailor the
proteins and to debug the autoassembly.

> course, a KQb would still speed up things substantially, but to really get
> into the singularity we need to reach the strongly intelligence augmenting
> regime; a QAI might come in handy.

QAI, by ANN, by QC? I dunno.

> > Could be... even post-Singularity, the logic seems as strong as ever:
> > Why waste the uncounted counterfactual branches of reality when they
> > could be performing useful work? Assuming we can't (or don't want to)
> > rewrite the laws of physics, continued QC does seem very probable.

I think the "can't" sounds more plausible. If it was (has been) possible,
we're living in a mockup. Newway's noncooperation assuming, the Cellticks
are doomed to a Life sentence.

> Yes, it is both reversible and could possibly become very dense. The
> question is how long the coherence times and lengths can be made; the
> last results suggest several minutes at least.

Insider knowledge? Beware, Anders' evil experiment has transcended!