
Nano-nonsense (2010) - ZhuanXia
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/nano-nonsense-25-years-of-charlatanry/
======
abecedarius
> This is an honest summary of Drexler’s Ph.D. thesis/book

It is not. I'm disappointed to see such lazy dishonest rhetoric on the front
page of a site for the intellectually curious. The thesis in question:
[https://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/Drexler_MIT_dissertation.pdf](https://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/Drexler_MIT_dissertation.pdf)

I think the bright spot in all this is that people learned from what happened
to Drexler's program for responsibly developing advanced nanotech and so far
have kept the AI safety program from the same fate. Drexler wrote a recent
book on that subject, btw:
[https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reframing/](https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reframing/)

~~~
kragen
Worse, my quantitative, rigorous comment about yogurt-making is currently
voted down to zero points:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21669311](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21669311)

We need to clean this place up.

~~~
aliswe
Kragen, those bacteria multiply, which I assume the nanobots do not? Then we
would have a real problem ...

~~~
kragen
At first I thought it was unjustifiably unkind of you to refer to the ignorant
downvoters as _bacteria_ , but now I see that wasn't what was meant.

The alternative to constructing atomically precise manipulators with other
atomically precise manipulators is to construct them with macroscopic
machinery such as scanning tunneling microscopes. Like writing a compiler in
machine code with front-panel switches or copying an operating-system kernel
with a handheld hole punch and paper tape, this may be feasible, but it will
be extremely difficult; once we have a working atomically precise manipulator,
it will be an enormously easier way to build more of them with it.

That's the reason for Drexler's prudent concern for safety protocols in
advance of the actual development of the machinery.

Of course, there's no reason that the constructor itself need be a micron-
scale device; the convergent-assembly proposals from Zyvex and Nanorex instead
use macroscopic machines with a large number of nanometer-scale atomically-
precise parts.

------
sophsoma
How can one stay on top of and get involved in the latest work in MEMS? Can
someone elaborate on the difference between licensed software for MEMS
multiphysics simulation like Comsol vs open source software simulated
collaboration? Have open fab tool projects been helpful in creating equipment
that could help amateurs do more scientific research at this scale? How could
one attempt to experimentally validate Drexler's latest proposed 3d printer
design with x-y-z axis photosteppers? [1] (Slide 14)

Silicon atom mechanosynthesis experiments have succeeded, but it seems there
is not enough funding for direct to DMS experiments with pico-stabilized
tooltips. Would it not be a good use of a billion dollar fund to
experimentally research the DFT-simulated diamondoid minimal tooltip set? [2]

\---

[1]
[https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f33/Keynote%...](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f33/Keynote%20presentation%20-%20Drexler.pdf)
[2]
[http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/MinToolset.pdf](http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/MinToolset.pdf)

------
treve
It's a 2010 article. Not knowing anything about nano tech, the frustration
sounds so similar to blockchain or any other fad.

~~~
Animats
Wow, it has been that long. I met Drexler when he was first saying that stuff.
My big question was "how do you power this stuff". Even if you had
nanomachines, building something big with a chemically powered system might
take as long as growing a tree. Maybe you could hook in external electrical
power somehow. But the "clouds of nanomachines floating around" concept seemed
to have a serious power problem.

"Nanotechnology" today is mostly surface chemistry. Surface chemistry is
important, but boring. IC technology, modern battery technology, and membranes
for separating things like salt and water are all based on clever tricks in
surface chemistry. It's called "nanotechnology" to make it sound cool.

Amusingly, the IC fab people, who really do put atoms almost exactly where
they want them, don't use the term.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Today's paperclip monster is yesterday's gray goo. Today's AGI is yesterday's
nanoscale economy. All run into obvious mundane practical challenges like
power, resources, scaleability, stability, error correction, and so on.

Of course if you _assume_ those problems are easily solvable implementation
details you can produce all kinds of dramatic speculations - which (IMO) are
mostly nonsense.

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629525](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629525)

------
Tossrock
Perhaps it was true when this was written, but it's certainly not true now
that "mechanical objects on microscales do not exist". The whole field of MEMS
is about them, which includes such prosaic things as smartphone
gyros/accelerometers.

~~~
AstralStorm
Even then it was not true, however nanoscale manufacturing as envisioned by
Drexler definitely does not exist.

MEMS objects are made by lithography not pushing atoms around, and are
extremely simple, usually just single chemical compound. (Sometimes a doped
semiconductor.) Said simple structures are often very dissimilar to complexity
envisioned by Drexler.

By the way, first M in MEMS is micro. It's not NEMS. NEMS also exists, but
again, it's made with lithography and chemistry, not any level of direct
molecular manipulation.

Heck, pharmacy chemists make nanostructures. (Liposomes and other vesicles
specifically, for mechanical purposes. Peptides. Even protein assemblies.)

------
EGKW
"Maxwell-Demon"? :)

~~~
shrubble
I took it as a reference to
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon)

