Re: Submolecular nanotech [WAS: Goals]

Anders Sandberg (
23 May 1999 21:30:42 +0200

"Raymond G. Van De Walker" <> writes:

> The big advantage of ufog is that it provides many of the advantages of
> nanotech while exposing one to fewer hazards than a solution in which
> general-purpose assemblers are ubiquitous.

It is often easier to rely on finished products than having the production system itself (only DIY people, survivalists and programmers disagree :-).

> However, it also looks like ufog is pretty hazardous by itself. Think of
> the lung disease that could be caused by misprogrammed ufog.

The problem seems to be that it is impossible to test very complex systems for all possible contingencies, and this will likely cause trouble when designing ufog. How do you convince the customers it is perfectly safe?

You get the same problem with AI: what testing would be required before an AI program was allowed to completely run a nuclear power plant? Most likely a lot, and even then I guess insurance premiums would go up and if somethind did go wrong people would be sued to hell. But having humans is allright, as long as they have had a certain education and passed certain less stringent tests.

> Also, the value would then shift from the material to the intellectual
> property, right?
> Intellectual property however, can be cheap.

Values are already shifting from material to intellectual values.

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y