Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

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

#31

Post by javajosh »

api wrote: post #14
petermcneeley wrote: post #3

The human that wrote this is actually a enormous assemblage of nanorobotics albeit of the carbon variety.

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…

>We are grey goo, and are currently working to build rockets to go out and continue converting the entire solar system and eventually the universe into grey goo.

In fairness, we are green goo and it's not like the universe was doing anything better with it's atoms. (We're also not likely to succeed much within the solar system, and almost certainly not likely to succeed outside of it.)

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

#32

Post by pdimitar »

p_l wrote: post #21
seunosewa wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are stretching definitions. Fact is, we don't have swarms of self-repairing micro-robots doing things. That was the main advertised output of nanotechnology. We don't have it.

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

#33

Post by tsbischof »

tkgally wrote: post #5

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

Somewhat. At this point nano, 2D materials, topological materials, and other buzzwords of the past are either mainstream or dying. AI/ML for automated experiment design in high-throughput screening is the new hot stuff in experimental science.

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

#34

Post by patrick0d »

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.

The parts of chemistry that work are just rebrandings of physics and the parts of physics that work are just rebrandings of math. Nanotech is a subset of physics with connections to solid state physics, quantum mechanics, materials science, optics etc. I don't get why people say nanotech is charlantry when the semiconductors chip manufacturing industry is top down nanotech manufacturing.

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

#35

Post by shapefrog »

pdimitar wrote: post #30
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?

Its not interesting at all, there are buzzwords and buzzwords get you paid. The secret is knowing the words they need and maneuvering them into the title.

I dont doubt if you look at the blurbs for an annual intake of YC you will see the exact same effect.

I am personally working the very first reimaging of the traditional with a distributed no code ai blockchain approach; that puts mobile, web and API customers first.

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

#36

Post by javajosh »

"Part 2 of this volume is an exercise in theoretical applied science, a mode of research which aims to describe technological possibilities as constrained not by present-day laboratory and factory techniques, but by physical law." -Eric Drexler, Nanosystems, Appendix A.

Dude was very clear about his aims, and it is a shitty kind of strawman argument to dunk on Drexler like Scott Locklin is doing here. Physicists think like this all the time when considering upper- and lower-bounds to things. Drexler just had the temerity to put nice graphics alongside his speculation. It's not his fault if people got inspired. The upside of his work (inspiring dreamers to get into materials science, physical chemistry, even molecular/cellular biology) far outweighs even the worst downsides haters like Locklin can invent.

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

#38

Post by [deleted] »

javajosh wrote: post #36

"Part 2 of this volume is an exercise in theoretical applied science , a mode of research which aims to describe technological possibilities as constrained not by present-day laboratory and factory techniques, but by physical law." -Eric Drexler, Nanosystems, Appendix A. Dude was very clear about his aims, and it is a shitty kind of strawman argument to dunk on Drexler like Scott Locklin is doing here. Physicists thi…

[deleted]

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

#39

Post by perlgeek »

> Really “material science” was a sort of fancy label for the chemistry of things we use to build other things.

Wrong, much of what material scientists do relate to the physical properties of the materials.

I know a few material scientists, and while they do have a small part of the lab that looks pretty much like a chemistry lab, most of their methods and goals differ from what happens in a typical chemistry lab.

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

#40

Post by p_l »

pdimitar wrote: post #32
p_l wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are stretching definitions. Fact is, we don't have swarms of self-repairing micro-robots doing things. That was the main advertised output of nanotechnology. We don't have it.

Does laymen overhyping a pie in the sky part of future, a "this is what we know is possible, but we're barely on first steps to get there" goal, disprove progress towards it or successful deployments?

Is R1/XCON accidentally restarting overhyping of AI leading to AI winter responsible for AI Winter? Does AI Winter disprove that a single program utilising classic AI techniques in middle of AI Winter paid back all ARPA/DARPA funding for AI?

No in all cases. The self-assembling nanobots aren't a short term goal, and pretty sure they were never seriously promised as short term goal. It's like complaining just after Lilienthal's death about lack of regular rocket service to Mars, because aviation enthusiast also espoused that it will be possible in the future.

Post reply on HN