3 ms·

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 progre

by 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.

3 ms·

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 progre

by p_l 4y ago

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.