Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > I never said I would sketch an
> > *invulnerable* system, just a sufficiently strong system. For any immense
> > shielding I can come up with you could always invoke an even greater
> > cosmological disaster ("But your immune system can't stand a supernova!").
> > This exercise is trying to look at defenses against gray goo, which
> > is the real problem, not macro-level warfare.
>
> But you *do* need an invulnerable system, or at least one that is invulnerable
> to goo. I can reasonably invoke any forces modern technology is capable of
> wielding, up to and including nuclear weapons. If black goo reduces your city
> to radioactive ash, you lose! It doesn't matter how sophisticated your
> defenses are! I am darn well entitled to demand that your immune system stand
> up against nuclear weapons, because in practice, that's what going to be used!
That's right.
> Not impossible. Not at all impossible. If you have a layered defense system,
> a diamond shell, and Fog seat belts, the city might be perfectly capable of
> withstanding a nuclear attack. It would lose a layer of defense, but might
> well be capable of rebuilding it before more black goo crossed the radioactive
> zone. In addition, as I pointed out, the city might gain more than it lost.
Does this mean that yoo are no longer confident in you "destruction
by induction" argument?
> Even so, it's entirely possible that, on any planet, the black goo wins. All
> the time. Every time. The Universe is under no obligation to make things
> easy for us. Hence the proposed Directive of Evacuation: "Get everyone off
> the Earth, into partitioned space colonies, before releasing nanotechnology to
> the world."
Yes, it is remarable how many people are stuck with the idea that an
effective defense *must* be possible. That's blind faith. And even if
effective defense is possible, there is still the genesis problem;
but by another leap of faith, that problem *must* be soluble too,
even within an unregulated mulipolar world order. I suspect there is
some ideological prejudice at the bottom of this.
> My mental picture of these conflicts is partially drawn from Conway's Game of
> Life, in which a single particle can destroy an enormous, complex structure.
> Things on the molecular level will almost certainly be different. Even so, I
> know of no better image.
An interesting way of looking at it.
> Try this tactic. First, the goo hits the city with a vaporize-one-layer
> attack, even though this also vaporizes a layer of goo. Then it detonates a
> nuclear weapon next to the city. This pushes the city into the goo,
Do you literally mean "push"? That would seem like fantasy.
> The gray goo problem is overrated; it's black goo we need to worry about.
I agree. As I think is clear from my postings, goo designed to
destruct is what I meant by grey goo, but from now on I will call it
black goo.
> > You assume that the destroyed cell will no
> > longer be a problem. But what if it turned into a cube of inert diamondoid?
> > Then it would also be a hinder, and give me even more time to develop
> > countermeasures.
>
> If it is inert diamondoid, is that more of a hindrance than the outer shell?
>
> Besides, this whole discussion is looking obsolete anyway. Any rigid outer
> defense is toast. It has to be surrounded by explosive-equipped soft 'mune.
> At most, you can have a rigid outer defense as a pretty shell.
I agree.
> > Note that they would be produced faster than the goo since the goo would
> > have to both reproduce, breach security and defend itself while the
> > antibodies and macrophages would just be produced (although a goo-like
> > macrophage is an interesting and dangerous concept) and sent on their way.
>if the goo has so much as a cubic millimeter to
> call its own, it can keep its queen reproducers in the center while
> surrounding itself with warrior goo, just like the city.
>
> Why can't the goo use antibodies and macrophages against the 'mune?
> The tactical symmetry remains unbroken.
Soo it seems.
> > > The goo simply makes repeated
> > > attacks, and each time, the city shrinks a little. We won't even speak of
> > > such horrors as cutting off that city's solar power.
> >
> > An isolated immune system in a world where nobody else has immune systems
> > is weaker than a system in a world where nanodefenses are common. The ultimate
> > defense would of course be to have immune systems everywhere, defending
> > not just the transhumans but the himalayas, squirrels and grass. A bit like
> > the current state in biology, really.
>
> If nanotechnology was released on Earth, the 'munes would have to be
> EVERYWHERE. The air. The water. Earth's molten core. Otherwise, the goo
> could gain a foothold.
Right. An infallible global immune system would be reguired. A local
immune system wouldn't stand a chance against black goo.
> > > Nanosystems are always faced with "destruction by induction". That is, you
> > > can always destroy one cell; therefore you can destroy the whole thing. To
> > > defend against this, it is required that the system expand faster than the
> > > destruction OR that it be impossible to destroy one cell.
> >
> > Or that you can make the loss of a finite number of cells bearable. If their
> > loss removes the threat (for example by forming a nanoscar), then the
> > defense side will win.
>
> I disagree with the whole concept of a nanoscar. If there is such a thing,
> you turn it into your first line of defense, not wait until after you've been invaded.
Right.
Nicholas Bostrom
London School of Economics
Department of Philosphy, Logic and Scientifc Method
email: n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
homepage: http://www.hedweb.com/nickb