> It seems far from clear to me that it is trivial to take a design for a
> bridge, throw some nanodust at it and say "Build it for me over there."
> Assembly and construction use intelligence, just as design does.
Robert Bradbury wrote:
>Hmmmm, if that is true, then how do we measure the IQ of a bacteria?
>Self-assembly can be done quite simply by throwing the parts in a heap
>and shaking or stirring until the desired result is obtained. The
>tough nut is to design the pieces so they can effectively self-assemble.
>That is generally not how macro-scale design is currently done.
Hal Finney wrote:
>I've never constructed anything more complex than a dog house, but it
>is true that most construction projects are challenging, even with a
>design that looks good on paper.
>However I think the reasons are mostly due to imperfections in the
>environment where the constructed object has to fit in, imperfections
>in the building materials, and imperfections in my construction technique.
>With nanotech we might be able to eliminate the last two sources of error.
>If all parts are perfect and all assembly steps are done with atomic scale
>precision, there should be no need for intelligence. Parts are attached
>or detached by rote, with a check to see if it went right, and (perhaps)
>discarded if there was a flaw. This would not take much intelligence.
I think what you are both saying is that you can substitute between assembly
intelligence and design intelligence and assembly control/conditions. Yes,
this is true, at least to some degree. But that doesn't mean it will be on
net cheaper to do such substitution, and it doesn't say how far you can
reasonably go in that direction.
Robin Hanson email@example.com http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:34 MDT