Grey goo • Hacker News Board

Re: Grey goo

#41

Post by jacquesm » Tue, May 25, 2010, 3:29 AM UTC

TNO wrote: post #24

asdflkj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating link. The nuclear bomb was a needlessly confusing example--I could have just mentioned explosives in general. Evolution is all about weapons, and explosives make for damn good ones, and it's not hard to imagine a realistic organism that uses them, unlike a nuke-wielding organism. Only I'm not sure that no organism uses explosives. I was already wrong once today about what nature can't do!

Bombadier beetle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombadier_Beetle

I'm surprised at the creationist angle in that article, it's not as though that has any bearing on informing people about an insect.

Re: Grey goo

#42

Post by dmoney » Tue, May 25, 2010, 3:49 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #19

dmoney wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grey goo. A grey goo unit just needs to produce more grey goo units. A paperclip maximizer needs to produce both paperclips and other paperclip maximizers. So the goo is more efficient.

But the Paperclip Maximizer is smarter!

I don't know if that's necessarily true by their definitions. As I see it they could be the same intelligent devices with different programmed goals. One group of nanobots you tell, "Make as many copies of yourself (including this instruction) as possible." The other you tell, "Make as many paperclips as possible."

I think they would make it their first order of business to destroy each other, postponing their primary goals in order to make weapons or enlist the help of allies. If they failed at destroying each other, they would reach some kind of peace treaty. Or maybe they would try peace first, realizing that war has too high a chance of wiping them out.

Re: Grey goo

#43

Post by jessriedel » Thu, May 27, 2010, 1:03 AM UTC

thunk wrote: post #38

jessriedel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you say building replicator is pointless without giving an argument. This is clearly wrong. I have already given you one example of the use of creating replicators, and here's another: weapons. Second, you say it is difficult with many failure modes. So was going to the moon. How can you possibly think it's so difficult that it will never get done? In a thousand years? Third, you cite Drexler to claim that we…

I apologize, but I don't have the time to put together a considered response right now, though I wish I did. Maybe this evening. I do think it's interesting the amount of anger I encounter whenever I even remotely question one of the Singularitarians' babies. There seems to be more ... emotional attachment ... than is healthy for skeptical inquiry.

I'd still very much like to hear what you have to say!