4 ms·
Both books are the sheerest science fiction. Drexlerian "you can't prove I can't build this" is eternal goal poasting. Yeah, I can't prove someone won't eventua
by scottlocklin 7y ago
Both books are the sheerest science fiction. Drexlerian "you can't prove I can't build this" is eternal goal poasting. Yeah, I can't prove someone won't eventually discover anti-gravity, faster than light travel or little green men in flying saucers. That doesn't mean serious people should waste even a second thinking about such nonsense.
Now a days, Drexler seems to make a living opinionating on "hard AI" -similar level of vaporware. I mean, whiggism is the default national religion of the US and the West in general, and I guess we need our preachers, but his career is preposterous, and the ideas he peddles are beyond snake oil.
- ZhuanXia 7y agoFTL and antigravity violate physical law. Drexler’s designs just don’t. Point me to a design in Nanosystems the that is physically impossible to construct. The point of Nanosystems was to explore what technologies are feasible given our current understanding of physics at that scale. It turns out there is a lot of latent potential there.
- scottlocklin 7y agoBoth FTL and antigravity have about more evidence in their favor (white juday interferometers, while probably bullshit, are at least physical) as nanotech.
- selimthegrim 7y agoHave you ever tried to read Drexler's PhD "thesis"? It looks like someone stapled about five "Here's What I Read Last Summer" book reports together.
- scottlocklin 7y agoYes I did; I wasted some time during my struggles with my own dissertation reading all of Drexler's gorp. It was hilarious. It's mind boggling to me he invented a "subject." I know guys with a Ph.D. in nanotech. One of them is a very talented GPU programmer who is embarrassed about the whole thing.