3 ms·

The danger of nanotechnology is that it can be built better than biological life. It could outcompete it in it's own environment, or at least different environm

The danger of nanotechnology is that it can be built better than biological life. It could outcompete it in it's own environment, or at least different environments. Solar panels can collect more energy than photosynthesis. Planes can fly faster than any bird. Guns are far more effective than any animal's weapons. Steam engines can run more efficiently than biological digestion. And we can get power from fuel sources biology doesn't touch, like fossil fuels or nuclear. We conquered the macro world before we even invented electricity. Now we are just starting to conquer the micro world. But AI is far more dangerous. It would take many many decades - perhaps centuries - of work to advance to that level. It's probably possible to build grey goo, it's just not easy or near. However AI could be much closer given the rapid rate of progress. If you make an unfriendly AI, you can't just shut it off. It could spread it's source code through the internet. And it won't tell you that it's dangerous. It will pretend to be benevolent until it no longer needs you.

cwp 11y ago
> Solar panels can collect more energy than photosynthesis. Planes can fly faster than any bird. Guns are far more effective than any animal's weapons. Steam engines can run more efficiently than biological digestion. And we can get power from fuel sources biology doesn't touch, like fossil fuels or nuclear. A gun isn't effective unless human loads it, aims it and pulls the trigger. All your other examples are the same. We do not have any machine that can build a copy of its self, even with infinite energy and raw materials just lying around nearby. Now consider what an "intelligent" machine looks like today: a datacenter with 100,000 servers, consuming a GW of power and constantly being repaired by humans. AI is nowhere near not needing us.
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Because we haven't had the reason or ability to make self replicating machines yet. It's possible though. With AI and some robotics, you can replace all humans with machines. The economy doesn't need us.

cwp 11y ago

> Solar panels can collect more energy than photosynthesis. Planes can fly faster than any bird. Guns are far more effective than any animal's weapons. Steam engines can run more efficiently than biological digestion. And we can get power from fuel sources biology doesn't touch, like fossil fuels or nuclear. A gun isn't effective unless human loads it, aims it and pulls the trigger. All your other examples are the same. We do not have any machine that can build a copy of its self, even with infinite energy and raw materials just lying around nearby. Now consider what an "intelligent" machine looks like today: a datacenter with 100,000 servers, consuming a GW of power and constantly being repaired by humans. AI is nowhere near not needing us.

Houshalter 11y ago
Because we haven't had the reason or ability to make self replicating machines yet. It's possible though. With AI and some robotics, you can replace all humans with machines. The economy doesn't need us.