4 ms·

> While no immediate practical applications exist, the researchers envision enhanced efficiency in micromotors, microscale cargo transport, and materials that c

> While no immediate practical applications exist, the researchers envision enhanced efficiency in micromotors, microscale cargo transport, and materials that can self-assemble or self-repair. Everyone who has ever written a grant application will recognise this wording.

lelandbatey 3y ago
I'm curious what the meaning behind the recognition is. Is it "this has applications potentially anywhere!" Is it actually code for "very dangerous military applications, DARPA please pay attention to me!"
- lupire 3y ago
  Swarm of killer robots.
- koolba 3y ago
  It’s code for: We’re not sure what it can do, but throw some more money at us and we’ll eventually tell you!
- epgui 3y ago
  It’s code for: we are really interested in continuing to research this and we believe it’s important (for reasons that nobody will really understand apart from the other 5-6 world experts), so we are making this statement as much of a marketing stretch as possible without it being technically dishonest. Getting research funding is just a brutally competitive game.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  In lots of published papers there is some kind of call-out for the requirement of future research. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=more+research+is+needed&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=more... A sentence like that or a variation thereof is part of the 'dance' around funding.
- Jweb_Guru 3y ago
  It's code for "this is important and useful to the world, but probably won't lead to any immediately practical applications from the perspective of the funders (economically, militarily, etc.). But we have to say it might or we won't get funded."
ptcrash 3y ago
Would you care to share for those of us who haven’t written a grant application before?
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  The writer can not imagine any realistic application for the foreseeable future. But hey, nothing is impossible.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    ... lots of things are impossible?
    - leoqa 3y ago
      name an impossible thing and a grant writer will propose a solution
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        Could God write a grant proposal so ambitious that He couldn't fund it?
        Kerb_ 3y ago
        Looking at how churches collect tithes, I wonder if He already has
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Not when fishing for grants.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- epgui 3y ago
  It’s the biggest stretch possible without it being technically dishonest. Everyone knows it: the researchers know it and gag a little as they write it, and the grant reviewers know it but pretty much require it without really ever saying that they require it (competitive landscape and all).
spacebacon 3y ago
Meh, if self-assembling, self-repairing materials forming a swarm of nano bots was going to take over the world it would have already happened elsewhere in the universe and proliferated everywhere by now. instead we have biology. The actual dominate force in our dimension that did proliferate.
- labster 3y ago
  Do you have any evidence that us biologicals are not an outlier other than the anthropic principle? Maybe our solar system is in the machines’ nature preserve sector.
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    Nope, strictly by objective evidence we are alone as you know. Our “dimension” the one unique to our perception and interpretation on Earth is dominated by biology. I don’t see an artificial system being able to sustain a supply chain long enough to defeat that. The supply chain of biology is inherit.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Why would that apply to synthetics but not to biologicals?
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    Ecosystem vs synthetic supply chain.
- emmo 3y ago
  How do you know it hasn't and isn't slowly making its way here? Universe is a big ol' boy.
wredue 3y ago
Erm so? No tech would ever be developed or furthered without exploring possibilities. Huge swathes of process and tech is developed purely on just trying things. HNs recent anti-science propaganda is getting pretty out of hand.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  But the point is that it's a lie, they have no intention to actually try those things. They only say them because as a society we do not give material support to physics for the sake of physics, instead we demand that it has some kind of economic value. Therefore physicists are incentived (or, really, forced) to oversell the reach of their ideas, since governments believe knowledge is not good in itself, it's only really good if there's some whiff that it may give a political or economic edge. All scientists in the world are used to pandering to this, so that they can be left alone and actually work. Unfortunately it seems to be getting more and more intense as time goes on, and as economies contract.
pimlottc 3y ago
Do you mean this general sort of speculative wording or these specific applications? If so, why these applications and not others?
- i-use-nixos-btw 3y ago
  Yes and yes. These applications specifically because anything that looks at anything on the micro scale includes these as “possible applications”. They sound cool and exciting, and the urge for making them has been around since before Feynman’s Room At The Bottom lecture. But my comment is mainly surrounding the farce of making a cool discovery that progresses an area of understanding, and then being asked a question that is best posed to engineers: “but what can we do with it?” Wrong field, wrong people, wrong question. Imagine if astrophysicists were asked these questions. “So you’ve discovered a new kind of star that is made entirely of sponge? What applications do you think will come out of this research?” “Well we hope it will help with Dyson Spheres, Astrology and sea navigation”
gumby 3y ago
> Everyone who has ever written a grant application will recognise this wording. And then when they see the university publicity department article on the topic everyone will know that the wild claims on how it will revolutionize the future started out as a reluctant and hedged "practicality" sentence. When a university pub office sends something out about a new theorem in pure math, the absurd "applications" claims are even funnier.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

lelandbatey 3y ago

I'm curious what the meaning behind the recognition is. Is it "this has applications potentially anywhere!" Is it actually code for "very dangerous military applications, DARPA please pay attention to me!"

lupire 3y ago
Swarm of killer robots.
koolba 3y ago
It’s code for: We’re not sure what it can do, but throw some more money at us and we’ll eventually tell you!
epgui 3y ago
It’s code for: we are really interested in continuing to research this and we believe it’s important (for reasons that nobody will really understand apart from the other 5-6 world experts), so we are making this statement as much of a marketing stretch as possible without it being technically dishonest. Getting research funding is just a brutally competitive game.
jacquesm 3y ago
In lots of published papers there is some kind of call-out for the requirement of future research. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=more+research+is+needed&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=more... A sentence like that or a variation thereof is part of the 'dance' around funding.
Jweb_Guru 3y ago
It's code for "this is important and useful to the world, but probably won't lead to any immediately practical applications from the perspective of the funders (economically, militarily, etc.). But we have to say it might or we won't get funded."

ptcrash 3y ago

Would you care to share for those of us who haven’t written a grant application before?

marcosdumay 3y ago
The writer can not imagine any realistic application for the foreseeable future. But hey, nothing is impossible.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  ... lots of things are impossible?
  - leoqa 3y ago
    name an impossible thing and a grant writer will propose a solution
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Could God write a grant proposal so ambitious that He couldn't fund it?
      - Kerb_ 3y ago
        Looking at how churches collect tithes, I wonder if He already has
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Not when fishing for grants.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
epgui 3y ago
It’s the biggest stretch possible without it being technically dishonest. Everyone knows it: the researchers know it and gag a little as they write it, and the grant reviewers know it but pretty much require it without really ever saying that they require it (competitive landscape and all).

spacebacon 3y ago

Meh, if self-assembling, self-repairing materials forming a swarm of nano bots was going to take over the world it would have already happened elsewhere in the universe and proliferated everywhere by now. instead we have biology. The actual dominate force in our dimension that did proliferate.

labster 3y ago
Do you have any evidence that us biologicals are not an outlier other than the anthropic principle? Maybe our solar system is in the machines’ nature preserve sector.
- spacebacon 3y ago
  Nope, strictly by objective evidence we are alone as you know. Our “dimension” the one unique to our perception and interpretation on Earth is dominated by biology. I don’t see an artificial system being able to sustain a supply chain long enough to defeat that. The supply chain of biology is inherit.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Why would that apply to synthetics but not to biologicals?
- spacebacon 3y ago
  Ecosystem vs synthetic supply chain.
emmo 3y ago
How do you know it hasn't and isn't slowly making its way here? Universe is a big ol' boy.

wredue 3y ago

Erm so? No tech would ever be developed or furthered without exploring possibilities. Huge swathes of process and tech is developed purely on just trying things. HNs recent anti-science propaganda is getting pretty out of hand.

bowsamic 3y ago
But the point is that it's a lie, they have no intention to actually try those things. They only say them because as a society we do not give material support to physics for the sake of physics, instead we demand that it has some kind of economic value. Therefore physicists are incentived (or, really, forced) to oversell the reach of their ideas, since governments believe knowledge is not good in itself, it's only really good if there's some whiff that it may give a political or economic edge. All scientists in the world are used to pandering to this, so that they can be left alone and actually work. Unfortunately it seems to be getting more and more intense as time goes on, and as economies contract.

pimlottc 3y ago

Do you mean this general sort of speculative wording or these specific applications? If so, why these applications and not others?

i-use-nixos-btw 3y ago
Yes and yes. These applications specifically because anything that looks at anything on the micro scale includes these as “possible applications”. They sound cool and exciting, and the urge for making them has been around since before Feynman’s Room At The Bottom lecture. But my comment is mainly surrounding the farce of making a cool discovery that progresses an area of understanding, and then being asked a question that is best posed to engineers: “but what can we do with it?” Wrong field, wrong people, wrong question. Imagine if astrophysicists were asked these questions. “So you’ve discovered a new kind of star that is made entirely of sponge? What applications do you think will come out of this research?” “Well we hope it will help with Dyson Spheres, Astrology and sea navigation”

gumby 3y ago

> Everyone who has ever written a grant application will recognise this wording. And then when they see the university publicity department article on the topic everyone will know that the wild claims on how it will revolutionize the future started out as a reluctant and hedged "practicality" sentence. When a university pub office sends something out about a new theorem in pure math, the absurd "applications" claims are even funnier.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]