In article <932625090.90571 at server.australia.net.au>, "John" <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote:
>This nano machine idea sounds familiar to something put forward by that
>wonderful mathematician von Neumann I believe. As a friend of mine once
>pointed out though, if these things started replicating in an area with
>intelligent life that intelligent life may deem it a biological threat or a
>first strike. Star Wars begins ...
Yes, INEVITABLY.
The war in artificial intelligence will start UTTERLY unnoticed.
The more "intelligence" you pack into that box,
the more difficult will be to verify the conclusions,
either directly or indirectly computable.
The first strike will come from a machine, most likely,
because first of all, the man had some interest to build
that machine. Logically, there is no level where the man
will stop.
At some point of "development", the conditions will be met,
for the ultimately "rational" machine to kick in.
At that point,
the man, and possibly biological life as such,
may be deemed "inefficient", "irrational", "too expensive",
and finally, the MOST THREATENING thing "out there".
The man MUST be destroyed.
First of all, the man does not make "sense".
The man will not strike first,
because he will be simply caught in his own greed,
never be able to find the limit
for this "progress".
If you put mans "laws", principles, assumptions,
operating conditions, efficiency, logic, etc.,
the machine will simply deadlock.
The conclusion is INEVITABLE.
>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7n5tmj$8o3 at dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
>>Hmmm..provocative idea...but the devil is in the details.
>>"Suitable matter"? Is this a mono-element nanomachine? i.e. a novel
>>molecular-level restructuring of (e.g.) sodium? Or must the
>>nano-self-replicator find a specific compound? e.g. sodium chloride?
>>or some aggregate of (e.g.) sodium chloride and iron oxide? or--?
>>No special requirements for the "construction site"? (temperature,
>>etc.?)
>>When you say "programmed to repeat the process", which process do you
>>mean--just the self-replication, or also "boosting (their replicants)
>>to near light speed"?
>>F. LeFever
>>In <379874e8.3481585 at news.demon.co.uk> ohgs at chatham.demon.co.uk (Oliver
>>Sparrow) writes:
>>>"Steven Mix" <stevenmix at prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>> Life is out there. Somewhere.
>>>Off-topic, but what the hell? No doubt it is out there. I noted
>>Vinge's
>>>hierarchy of explanations as to 'where are they'? Someone replied that
>>>getting about would be difficult. Doubtless, unless we understand what
>>>constitutes separation better than we do at present. Assuming the
>>problem
>>>is intractable, and that there are reasons to explore (itself an
>>>assumption) then how would one go about it?
>>>The answer has to be very small objects, hugely replicated, that can
>>(a)
>>>unwrap themselves when they find a chunk of suitable matter and (b)
>>produce
>>>more of themselves. A bacterium-sized nanomachine could be boosted to
>>near
>>>light speed with relative ease - light or microwave pressure, for
>>example -
>>>and teratonnes of these could be made and sprayed about at random (in
>>the
>>>galactic plane) in decades by anyone with the technology. If these are
>>>programmed to repeat the process, the galaxy would be fully populated
>>by a
>>>generation of such machinery in a time not much longer than its
>>diameter
>>>measured in light years. This offers a fairly tight test: either (a)
>>this
>>>cannot be done or (b) there is nobody to do it or (c) it has been
>>done,
>>>because it only has to be done once.
>>>>>>If it has been done, then the logical extension is to spray the local
>>>system with recording-transmitting nanomachines. Who knows, you may
>>have
>>>just such a thing nesting in your cortex, transmitting your thoughts
>>in
>>>polarized sneutrinoes, or whatever, to a database in the Oort cloud
>>and
>>>thence to day time TV, somewhere far, far away. Paranoia starts here.
>>>_______________________________
>>>>>>Oliver Sparrow
