Post Reply Smart drones that self assemble
5936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 10/6/17 , edited 10/7/17
So you build a drone with an operating system that moves collect and does things. You can then have a computer link wirelessly to it to control it. Now the reason this drone needs an operating system is so that it can interprets the wireless signal you send to it. But in the end, drone builds more drones into this seemingly grey goo scenario.

Anyway my original thought is for the nanomachine with an operating system, but let's build one that moves to begin with. And transmitting signal at a nanometer sale could be kind of tricky.
137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/6/17 , edited 10/7/17
Do you want Skynet? Cause this is how you get Skynet.
5936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 10/7/17 , edited 10/7/17

CornChowder wrote:

Do you want Skynet? Cause this is how you get Skynet.


Lol no, the smartness of the drones depend on the central computer. The central computer is programmed by human.
1600 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 10/7/17 , edited 10/7/17

CornChowder wrote:

Do you want Skynet? Cause this is how you get Skynet.


I do not think that a machine as overpowered as Skynet could exist due to logistics limitation and inflexibility. I could not think of any humans who would want to create a machine that could sustain itself over long term and rewrite itself to adapt to various situations especially with the huge cost and construction skill needed for such machine. A machine that could only reproduce in a specially prepared room with readily provided resource is more festible. I also would not believe any humans would want to program a machine to have evil morality with the exception of some Capitalist sects.
18866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 10/7/17 , edited 10/7/17
the best you could come up with right now is a drone that collects milke jugs and turns into 3d printed drone frames and motors.
Posted 10/7/17 , edited 10/7/17
omg it's like when people go round collecting food then making babies.
5936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 10/7/17 , edited 10/8/17
Now machine taking over the world is not what you should worry about. What you should worry about is Grey Goo, like the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still. If you design a nanomachine that is capable of pulling apart carbon atoms and assemble itself, we could be in trouble, because the world is made of carbon atoms. It would quickly locate and disintegrate any structure for the sole purpose of mass producing itself. Now the safer way of going about it is nanofactory. When the material runs out, the factory stops. Originally thought of as a simple way to mass produce nanomachines could turn into a disaster. But that's not what I am here for, I am here to find a simple means of creating a nanomachine that would self guide itself into our cell to change the DNA with a microcontroller or operating system.


P.S The trick is to have an anti-nanomachine design in mind. Like Cowboy Bebop's Knocking on Heaven's Gate. How that will work is beyond my imagination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmexd4UdjXs
16365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/8/17
Speaking of babies, you could keep them in the crispr for freshness.
9832 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/8/17
Hegemonising Swam Objects? Yeah, that's bad news. Existential threat level bad news. You don't want to go down that road.

I think you should stop reading Sci-Fi Fred, until you get a handle on what's a "beneficial" idea and which ones are "Armageddon level bad".

Put down the book and step away from the Library
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/8/17

fredreload wrote:

If you design a nanomachine that is capable of pulling apart carbon atoms...


...you can't build it, because thermodynamics and organic chemistry.

Grey goo scenarios are scientifically illiterate bullshit.
3285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/8/17

cdarklock wrote:


fredreload wrote:

If you design a nanomachine that is capable of pulling apart carbon atoms...


...you can't build it, because thermodynamics and organic chemistry.

Grey goo scenarios are scientifically illiterate bullshit.


It's correct that you can't "take apart" carbon atoms, but it's incorrect that grey goo scenarios are bullshit. Though it's ridiculously unlikely that strange matter could in fact cause a grey goo scenario on earth.
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/8/17

auroraloose wrote:

It's correct that you can't "take apart" carbon atoms, but it's incorrect that grey goo scenarios are bullshit.


Strangelets are bullshit. They're base speculation with no foundation in reality. In layman's terms, all strange particles are unstable and lose their strangeness, but WHAT IF WE MADE ONE WITH LIKE A WHOLE FUCKTONNE OF QUARKS?!

That's not science. That's a grad student smoking a lot of weed.

3285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The margins
Offline
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/9/17

cdarklock wrote:


auroraloose wrote:

It's correct that you can't "take apart" carbon atoms, but it's incorrect that grey goo scenarios are bullshit.


Strangelets are bullshit. They're base speculation with no foundation in reality. In layman's terms, all strange particles are unstable and lose their strangeness, but WHAT IF WE MADE ONE WITH LIKE A WHOLE FUCKTONNE OF QUARKS?!

That's not science. That's a grad student smoking a lot of weed.



If you can write the paper outlining the energetics of multiquark arrangements, feel free. I also think the notion of strange particles converting the earth into strange matter is absurd, but as my field of work is not quark matter, I'm hesitant to make blanket claims about stability. Further, physicists still discuss the stability of the standard model vacuum - along with the extreme possibility that the whole universe could spontaneously decay into a state corresponding to lower-energy physical laws, destroying the universe in the process. To me that demonstrates a fortiori that the strange matter idea isn't beyond reason.
20762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Online
Posted 10/8/17 , edited 10/9/17

auroraloose wrote:
If you can write the paper outlining the energetics of multiquark arrangements, feel free.


I don't have to. In over thirty years, not a single shred of scientific evidence has been produced that strangelets exist, have ever existed, or even could exist. And that doesn't even begin to address the question of whether the hypothesis is in any way correct about the qualities of strangelets.


To me that demonstrates a fortiori that the strange matter idea isn't beyond reason.


Oh, it's not beyond reason. It's bullshit. Somebody made it up and there's no good reason to believe it's true. You can still believe it; you just won't have a good reason.
23401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 10/9/17 , edited 10/12/17

CornChowder wrote:

Do you want Skynet? Cause this is how you get Skynet.


well it has to start somewhere
You must be logged in to post.