Re: Genetic transition to posthumanism

Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 01:37:28 MDT

In a message dated 5/1/01 3:34:42 PM, writes:

>They're not just springs. They're linear actuators. They protract when
>you apply an electrical potential, due to Coulomb forces, and pull
>back due to attraction of (weak, short-range) van der Waals forces
>between the concentric graphite sheets, within few 10 ns. That's
>right, there's not much mass to move, so even little forces acting
>over short periods of time move stuff *fast*.

Well, that's the most impressive thing I've yet heard about nano. It's
still ages and ages from anything singularity-inducing.

>> I think that's very premature, given that we can do *neither* universal,

>Of course it's premature, I wouldn't be saying that in a paper.
>It's just my personal, private opinion. Nevertheless, if I was
>in the nanotechnology field, I know what I'd be working on right

Perfectly logical. Lots of worthwhile stuff to do apart from trying
to induce a singularity.

>> We do need mpsrn for the nanoSanta which will solve all our problems.

>I've stopped beliving in Santa (he was called Ded Moroz back
>then) when I was a small kid. Why should I start believing
>into him now?

I've no desire to change your opinion substantially. But some people here
seem to think there's a singularity at our doorstep, and that entails
nanoSanta, AISanta, or bioSanta.

>> given Moore's law, I think it's *possible* that human-equivalent
>> AI could be created in 20 years or so. I wouldn't bet the bank on

>Given that the state of the art in software development doesn't
>move visibly, and that the complexity bareer still exists, I
>don't see how anybody could hope to sit down, and explicitly
>write down an AI.

Neither do I . IMO, it'll need some serious self-organization and
genetic algorithms. *If* it's possible in the near future.

>> doorstep. That's my concept of practical optimism; there are a
>> lot of great things under development; things can improve over the
>> next 20 years and more after that. It's counterproductive, however,
>> to *expect* very improbable miracles; it'll throw off your discount
>> rate. You'll end up doing suboptimal stuff.

>Um, that's me, 'gene here. You're probably talking to somebody

I *was* hoping you weren't the only one reading this.
(please, nobody post just to say you were.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:01 MDT