Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.
On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Robin Hanson wrote:
> Damien Broderick writes:
> >What interests me is the number of gestures at programming, instruction, etc
> >in these pages. There's the `seed' you mention, a nice device but chockful
> >of knowledge that has been put there by prodigious human effort, I gather.
> >>>The link from [hideously] complex algorithms generated by
>
> Damien B.'s main point seems to be that advanced nanotech would
> require some damn complex software which embodies or otherwise has
> access to quite a bit of knowledge, including how things aught to be
> designed, and how those designs can be assembled. John Clark's
> response seems to be that it will nonetheless still happen someday.
> If so, I'm not sure there is much disagreement here.
Actually, this is where genetic technology can far outstrip nanotech, at
least sooner. The programming is already there. Programming a horde of
nanobots to regrow an arm is a non-trivial task. It is far easier to use
genetic and bio technology to do these things. We should look at what
nanotech can do that is inefficient for other technolgies. Nanotech could
quite possibly be a cure-all, but it will be an inefficient one initially.
But wait..New thought just hit. You can use fractal and self-replicating
mathematics and the like to program nanobots, could you not. Would that
increase the efficiency substantially? Or has this already been discussed.
>
> Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/
>
>