Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#21

Post by p_l » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

seunosewa wrote: post #10

bitcharmer wrote: post #2

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview. [0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

What's the best nanotech achievement so far, though?

Other than computer chips and advances in microscale machining (not yet nanoscale, but it takes time to scale down the manufacturing capabilities)?

If we count microscale advances then projector displays, fully optical dynamic switching in MPLS networks, all sorts of sensors including accelerometers in phones etc.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#22

Post by shapefrog » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

I remember slapping the word "nano" in to the title of a research grant that had previously been rejected after much back and forth.

Approved and funded instantly.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#23

Post by api » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #18

api wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s one of the more powerful counterarguments against “Drexlerism.” Nanotech already exists. It’s called biology and it has already spent a billion years exploring the combinatorial space of what molecular machinery can do. Indeed it has evolved a lot of very exotic molecular machines that do seem to take advantage of quantum effects in various ways. We are grey goo, and are currently working to build rockets to g…

How is that a counterargument to Drexlerism? The fact that it already exists would seem to make it more likely that human engineering will leverage it.

Yeah but the human engineering you are looking for is mostly called biotech.

I think the argument is that there just isn’t a novel field here. Drexler tried to carve one out where none exists to make himself and his followers look like they invented something when they did not.

Nanotech is really just gloss on biology, materials engineering, or chemistry, all of which are well aware of quantum scale effects and use them.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#24

Post by narag » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

So no The Diamond Age anytime soon? That was a really fun read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#25

Post by h2odragon » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:35 PM UTC

tkgally wrote: post #5

This was written in 2010. Has the situation—hype?—around nanotechnology changed since then?

Yes, the buzzword bingo has progressed and "ML/AI" and "VR" have become better moneybait words than "nano-" was.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#26

Post by h2odragon » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:37 PM UTC

bitcharmer wrote: post #2

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview. [0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

Read the rest of his blog; you'll probably find your opinion reinforced.

However he's often correct when others are not; which many feel justifies some arrogance.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#27

Post by MrBuddyCasino » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

bitcharmer wrote: post #2

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview. [0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

He most definitely is an arrogant asshole. The question is: is he right?

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#28

Post by chaosite » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

api wrote: post #15

sergj wrote: post #12

Modern nanotechnology is a multi disciplinary approach using effects on the nanoscale for new technologies. Therefore people from different fields come together to synthesis, simulate, analyse etc. nanoparticles/systems. Of course in the media nanotechnology is this big catch all word, where everybody immediately thinks about self replicating nanomachines - this is still fiction. Eventhough nanotechnology has not ful…

I think the argument is that the parts that work are just rebranding of chemistry, physics, and materials engineering.

Isn't that basically what "multi-disciplinary" means?

Additionally, scientific niches rebranding themselves is a thing that happens, for examples when Computer Science rebranded itself from Mathematics and Electrical Engineering.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#29

Post by kalimanzaro » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:39 PM UTC

bitcharmer wrote: post #2

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview. [0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

I dont know: both guys seem to enjoy playing the asshole for laughs. The picture at the top suggests that he could really complete the look by pairing a full suit with a mohawk.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#30

Post by pdimitar » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:41 PM UTC

shapefrog wrote: post #22

I remember slapping the word "nano" in to the title of a research grant that had previously been rejected after much back and forth. Approved and funded instantly.

Now that would be an interesting history to read! Are some of these occurrences documented?