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

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by anon_123g987 »

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…

Nature/evolution is working on a macroscopic scale, too, for billions of years. Still, there was and is a lot of "combinatorial space" for human engineers to explore, like inventing the wheel, for example, with which nature didn't bother.

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

#52

Post by cma »

mannykannot wrote: post #44
mistercow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree that it’s tangential to the main point. Still, it makes me question the author’s credibility on the subject. If you’re claiming something won’t exist, and you’re overlooking a large amount of technology that does exist, I can’t help but think that you might have overlooked something in your assessment of the state of the art.

It is obvious that the author is referring to the sort of technology that Drexler and company were positing - a technology explicitly claimed to be so unlike anything then- (and now) realized that it would be radically transformative. At the time of writing, nothing even approaching a proof-of-concept existed (DMD devices certainly are not that), and this has not changed in the decade+ since. You can, of course, supp…

When he says "even" he presumably means micro in contrast to nano machines.

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

#53

Post by Teever »

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.

Did Drexler predict that we would have swarms of self-repairing micro-robots by 2022? I don't know the answer to that, I'm genuinely asking the question.

Like what's the timeline for nano-technology as predicted all those years ago and are we on that timeline?

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

#54

Post by pdimitar »

Teever wrote: post #53
pdimitar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did Drexler predict that we would have swarms of self-repairing micro-robots by 2022? I don't know the answer to that, I'm genuinely asking the question. Like what's the timeline for nano-technology as predicted all those years ago and are we on that timeline?

I haven't seen the author of the OP article talk about timelines. It was about skeptics not being able to disprove that we will NOT have that at some point.

Which I found to be good criticism because many charlatans operate exactly like that: (a) make a nebulous claim, (b) get called out, (c) pull the "you can't disprove me" card while OBVIOUSLY a good scientific discussion should go the other way: the claimer should prove their claims.

That's why I liked the OP article where the author called Drexler a sci-fi writer.

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

#55

Post by mistercow »

mannykannot wrote: post #44
mistercow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree that it’s tangential to the main point. Still, it makes me question the author’s credibility on the subject. If you’re claiming something won’t exist, and you’re overlooking a large amount of technology that does exist, I can’t help but think that you might have overlooked something in your assessment of the state of the art.

It is obvious that the author is referring to the sort of technology that Drexler and company were positing - a technology explicitly claimed to be so unlike anything then- (and now) realized that it would be radically transformative. At the time of writing, nothing even approaching a proof-of-concept existed (DMD devices certainly are not that), and this has not changed in the decade+ since. You can, of course, supp…

Look at the sentence in context. It is obvious that the author is referring to microscale machines, not nanoscale. And the statement he makes there is simply false.

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

#56

Post by p_l »

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?

Some call it "research grant bullshit bingo" - you massage the grant contents till you hit the currently necessary bingo combination for getting your grant past gatekeepers of money.

In similar vein is padding grants with equipment (including software licenses) that is often secondary to the needs or sometimes even was already available, but which would in turn enable you to work more efficiently on 20 more projects and be passed to institution after grant ended, helping other people.

Grant review and acceptance is quite often a question of what's fashionable and thus might get unspoken extra points in evaluation.

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

#57

Post by mannykannot »

mistercow wrote: post #55
mannykannot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is obvious that the author is referring to the sort of technology that Drexler and company were positing - a technology explicitly claimed to be so unlike anything then- (and now) realized that it would be radically transformative. At the time of writing, nothing even approaching a proof-of-concept existed (DMD devices certainly are not that), and this has not changed in the decade+ since. You can, of course, supp…

Look at the sentence in context. It is obvious that the author is referring to microscale machines, not nanoscale. And the statement he makes there is simply false.

My point is that the case against Drexler’s concept does not collapse because of this one mistake.

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

#58

Post by mistercow »

mannykannot wrote: post #57
mistercow wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the sentence in context. It is obvious that the author is referring to microscale machines, not nanoscale. And the statement he makes there is simply false.

My point is that the case against Drexler’s concept does not collapse because of this one mistake.

Right, which I already acknowledged.

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

#59

Post by shapefrog »

shapefrog wrote: post #35
pdimitar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 firs…

Please stop contacting me for funding rounds. Due to overwhelming demand I have had to close funding. However, in exceptional circumstances or if you have a very large offering then I may reopen funding.

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

#60

Post by pdimitar »

p_l wrote: post #40
pdimitar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Come on now, that's a straw man. If nanobots were neveer the short-term goal then maybe it would pay off to not ramble that enthusiastically about them (and a good amount of other just as impossible-sounding technology achievements)? Or at least not try and pass it as serious science? Or if not even that, not sell a book selling sci-fi to the masses while dressing it as serious science when it clearly isn't?

Obviously science very rarely makes huge leaps. It's also very obvious we need a good amount of progress in materials science before even the theoretically-possible notion of microbots becomes viable.

That's all quite fine. But I join the author of the article in mocking people who babble enthusiastically about the far future and sell it as science. And then even have the gall to use complete non-sequiturs like "you can't disprove me!".

So you see, I don't disagree with you as far as I can tell. But I still do disagree with the "scientist" that the author's article is referring to.

Post reply on HN