3 ms·

What's the best nanotech achievement so far, though?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
p_l 4y ago
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.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  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.
  - p_l 4y ago
    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/DARPA funding for AI? No in all cases. The self-assembling nanobots aren't a short term goal, and pretty sure they were never seriously promised as short term goal. It's like complaining just after Lilienthal's death about lack of regular rocket service to Mars, because aviation enthusiast also espoused that it will be possible in the future.
    - pdimitar 4y ago
      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.
  - Teever 4y ago
    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?
    - pdimitar 4y ago
      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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

p_l 4y ago

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.

pdimitar 4y ago
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.
- p_l 4y ago
  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/DARPA funding for AI? No in all cases. The self-assembling nanobots aren't a short term goal, and pretty sure they were never seriously promised as short term goal. It's like complaining just after Lilienthal's death about lack of regular rocket service to Mars, because aviation enthusiast also espoused that it will be possible in the future.
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    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.
- Teever 4y ago
  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?
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    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.