7 ms·

The article is really bad. What is preventing nanobots, for example, from completely eradicating the problem of cancer at some stage of technological developmen

The article is really bad. What is preventing nanobots, for example, from completely eradicating the problem of cancer at some stage of technological development? It's like the author wants cancer to have some mystical power over us forever and is fitting all current endeavors to that narrative.

dekhn 8y ago
I'd say the article is realistic, based on how oncology is currently done in the medical field. As for the question of whether nanobots can completely cure cancer, that's scifi. Actually identifying tumors and removing them is a hard classification problem followed by a careful surgery. Generally this is done using advanced imaging, radiologists who interpret the images, guiding surgeons or doctors to either do tumor resections, or select chemotherapy. Nanobots are just a tiny version of the tumor resection, with the added problem that nanobots don't exist, they don;t' have the computational power to discriminate invasive tumors (at least, the current generation of "robot pills don't). So let's focus on what is tangible in the near future: additional use of machine learning based on large training sets collected across hundreds of studies. That is in fact very likely to counter the author's hypothesis.
- esahione 8y ago
  It is sci-fi just like having the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips was sci-fi 100 years ago. If it is physically feasible, which it is given we have immune cells and they are just evolution-created versions of these nanobots, then it is just an engineering problem and we humans are pretty good at engineering things. Things will keep moving forward; macro approaches such as your suggestions will work insofar as we can find the cells. In the end it will probably be a mixture of re-engineering our immune cells to better identify and protect against cancer, macro approaches such as the ones you mentioned, and more. It is a hard problem, of course, otherwise we'd have it solved by now, but we've solved hard problems before. And with AI it will be easier and easier to do so.
  - dekhn 8y ago
    you know I've worked in this field for over 25 years and while I started out thinking nanobots were going to cure diseases, I haven't seen any realistic evidence showing they have a promising future, even 100 years from now. I think it;'s much more likely we'll just study immune cells more and use them for therapy without creating nanobots.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > I haven't seen any realistic evidence showing they have a promising future We’re not yet at nanoscale manufacturing in one of the few domains with the scale and capital to fund its development: microprocessor manufacturing.
      - Retric 8y ago
        What do you think editing DNA to make a protean is? You don’t get smaller scale than individual atoms, but it takes more than an atom to do anything.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > What do you think editing DNA to make a protean is? Re-defining biology as “nanobots” renders the latter word useless.
        Retric 8y ago
        Biology runs on the same physics as anything else. At best nanobots get a wider range of atoms to play with, and that’s it.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Biology runs on the same physics as anything else Paper planes and fighter jets run can be modelled by the same physics. That doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. “Nanobots” implies greater degrees of freedom and function than purely biological techniques can manage. (For example, by incorporating digital circuitry and novel materials into the mix.)
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  It's sci-fi...sure...just like instantly sending messages across the world was 200 years ago. The point is that it is perfectly feasible that this will indeed happen, but the author suggests that "engineering" won't solve the problem because it's "organic" and "ecological". Well, so were many other diseases over the course of human history which are now virtually eradicated. Nanobots are not necessarily just tiny tumor resectors, they could be implemented in dozens of possible ways with future technology (using some form of machine learning).
mcguire 8y ago
By 2026?
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  This is a very realistic deadline. Yep. The cancer problem is pretty much solved at 2026. In 2027 there will be exactly zero people in the world with cancer.
crimsonalucard 8y ago
>It's like the author wants cancer to have some mystical power over us forever and is fitting all current endeavors to that narrative. The author is realistic. What I see among young people today is technology worship. It's like technology has a mystical power over you guys and you think that it will solve every problem known to man. Technology has limits just as physics has limits, but you guys bend all problems toward the narrative of being solve-able by Data science, machine learning or nano-machines. I hate to break it to you. Not only will many problems remain unsolved. The future will proceed in an unpredictable direction.
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  No, the author makes baseless claims about the future of technology under the guise of "being reasonable". Technology is just applied and abstracted physics, so I'm not sure what your point is there. No one said anything about data science...this seems a little ranty TBH. You aren't arguing against anyone in this thread.
  - crimsonalucard 8y ago
    My point is this statement right here: >Technology is just applied and abstracted physics. Like thats it. Technology is so simple. It's just physics. I'm arguing with your attitude and your technology worship. AS if nanotechnology is right around the corner and will cure cancer 100%. Cancer is not a trivial problem and likely a problem that will not be solved within our lifetimes. All the article is saying is that data science, machine learning and all these buzz words popping out of silicon valley aren't the answer to cancer. But we have people like you heralding machine learning and nano-machines as the answer to problems such as world peace. Open your eyes.
bsder 8y ago
> What is preventing nanobots, for example, from completely eradicating the problem of cancer at some stage of technological development? The same thing that currently prevents nanobots (your immune cells) for eradicating the problem of cancer. So, why don't we figure that out? Everybody in tech not in biology needs to realize that we HAVE nanobots--they're called cells or bacteria or viruses (also called minimum viable product). And, most of the time, those nanobots do a good job. However, sometimes they have bugs that get exploited and we need to be able to help out when that happens.
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  You are misreading the meaning of the sentence you quoted. It's a rhetorical question, synonymous with: "it is entirely feasible that we will eradicate cancer with nanobots" which then ties in with the remainder of the argument which you left out.

dekhn 8y ago

I'd say the article is realistic, based on how oncology is currently done in the medical field. As for the question of whether nanobots can completely cure cancer, that's scifi. Actually identifying tumors and removing them is a hard classification problem followed by a careful surgery. Generally this is done using advanced imaging, radiologists who interpret the images, guiding surgeons or doctors to either do tumor resections, or select chemotherapy. Nanobots are just a tiny version of the tumor resection, with the added problem that nanobots don't exist, they don;t' have the computational power to discriminate invasive tumors (at least, the current generation of "robot pills don't). So let's focus on what is tangible in the near future: additional use of machine learning based on large training sets collected across hundreds of studies. That is in fact very likely to counter the author's hypothesis.

esahione 8y ago
It is sci-fi just like having the entire world's knowledge at your fingertips was sci-fi 100 years ago. If it is physically feasible, which it is given we have immune cells and they are just evolution-created versions of these nanobots, then it is just an engineering problem and we humans are pretty good at engineering things. Things will keep moving forward; macro approaches such as your suggestions will work insofar as we can find the cells. In the end it will probably be a mixture of re-engineering our immune cells to better identify and protect against cancer, macro approaches such as the ones you mentioned, and more. It is a hard problem, of course, otherwise we'd have it solved by now, but we've solved hard problems before. And with AI it will be easier and easier to do so.
- dekhn 8y ago
  you know I've worked in this field for over 25 years and while I started out thinking nanobots were going to cure diseases, I haven't seen any realistic evidence showing they have a promising future, even 100 years from now. I think it;'s much more likely we'll just study immune cells more and use them for therapy without creating nanobots.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > I haven't seen any realistic evidence showing they have a promising future We’re not yet at nanoscale manufacturing in one of the few domains with the scale and capital to fund its development: microprocessor manufacturing.
    - Retric 8y ago
      What do you think editing DNA to make a protean is? You don’t get smaller scale than individual atoms, but it takes more than an atom to do anything.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > What do you think editing DNA to make a protean is? Re-defining biology as “nanobots” renders the latter word useless.
        Retric 8y ago
        Biology runs on the same physics as anything else. At best nanobots get a wider range of atoms to play with, and that’s it.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Biology runs on the same physics as anything else Paper planes and fighter jets run can be modelled by the same physics. That doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. “Nanobots” implies greater degrees of freedom and function than purely biological techniques can manage. (For example, by incorporating digital circuitry and novel materials into the mix.)
TaupeRanger 8y ago
It's sci-fi...sure...just like instantly sending messages across the world was 200 years ago. The point is that it is perfectly feasible that this will indeed happen, but the author suggests that "engineering" won't solve the problem because it's "organic" and "ecological". Well, so were many other diseases over the course of human history which are now virtually eradicated. Nanobots are not necessarily just tiny tumor resectors, they could be implemented in dozens of possible ways with future technology (using some form of machine learning).

mcguire 8y ago

By 2026?

crimsonalucard 8y ago
This is a very realistic deadline. Yep. The cancer problem is pretty much solved at 2026. In 2027 there will be exactly zero people in the world with cancer.

crimsonalucard 8y ago

>It's like the author wants cancer to have some mystical power over us forever and is fitting all current endeavors to that narrative. The author is realistic. What I see among young people today is technology worship. It's like technology has a mystical power over you guys and you think that it will solve every problem known to man. Technology has limits just as physics has limits, but you guys bend all problems toward the narrative of being solve-able by Data science, machine learning or nano-machines. I hate to break it to you. Not only will many problems remain unsolved. The future will proceed in an unpredictable direction.

TaupeRanger 8y ago
No, the author makes baseless claims about the future of technology under the guise of "being reasonable". Technology is just applied and abstracted physics, so I'm not sure what your point is there. No one said anything about data science...this seems a little ranty TBH. You aren't arguing against anyone in this thread.
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  My point is this statement right here: >Technology is just applied and abstracted physics. Like thats it. Technology is so simple. It's just physics. I'm arguing with your attitude and your technology worship. AS if nanotechnology is right around the corner and will cure cancer 100%. Cancer is not a trivial problem and likely a problem that will not be solved within our lifetimes. All the article is saying is that data science, machine learning and all these buzz words popping out of silicon valley aren't the answer to cancer. But we have people like you heralding machine learning and nano-machines as the answer to problems such as world peace. Open your eyes.

bsder 8y ago

> What is preventing nanobots, for example, from completely eradicating the problem of cancer at some stage of technological development? The same thing that currently prevents nanobots (your immune cells) for eradicating the problem of cancer. So, why don't we figure that out? Everybody in tech not in biology needs to realize that we HAVE nanobots--they're called cells or bacteria or viruses (also called minimum viable product). And, most of the time, those nanobots do a good job. However, sometimes they have bugs that get exploited and we need to be able to help out when that happens.

TaupeRanger 8y ago
You are misreading the meaning of the sentence you quoted. It's a rhetorical question, synonymous with: "it is entirely feasible that we will eradicate cancer with nanobots" which then ties in with the remainder of the argument which you left out.