From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Fri Jan 08 1999 - 13:50:08 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> The danger zone begins here. Note how the internet causes panic
> reactions in society? And it still grows over the span of *years*. I
> think the timescale society manages to adapt lies on the order of half
> a decade, maybe a decade (with variations for culture, neophilia,
> planning etc), and faster growth causes irrational reactions -
> including positive reactions like hype and a naive embrace of
> the new.
We could burn a lot of electrons arguing about where the borders of the
danger zone fall - that's why I didn't offer any numbers. IMO, we actually
have a zone of steadily increasing danger as the rate of change increases.
Right now society doesn't have time to fully adjust to new developments, but
we at least have time to wonder what to do about them. More importantly,
there is time for the feedback mechanisms of free markets and various social
institutions to have some effect on the course of events. The faster the
rate of change, the less chance there is for such forces to operate, and the
more unstable things become.
> I don't think there is an upper end to the danger zone, simply because
> I regard the "...and then the owners of the technology take over the
> world" solution only work if they are *far* ahead of everyone.
I agree. However, you can generate a scenario where that would happen if
you mix the right assumptions together. What we need is:
1) automated engineering is very easy
2) nanotech design is manageable
3) computers are very fast
4) nanotech is very hard to actually implement for some reason
That creates a situation where you have designs for very advanced devices
that no one can build. The first group to get an assembler can use it to
implement those designs, giving them a huge instant jump in power.
Ordinarily we would expect other groups to duplicate the feat and catch up,
but nanotech also lets you make faster computers. So, the leading power
whips up a huge mob of supercomputers and sets them to work designing even
better hardware. Their computers will be on a faster improvement curve than
anyone else's, so no one can catch up until they hit the limits of what is
possible.
Now, I don't think that could actually happen, but that's because I think
assumptions are contradictory. You can't get computers fast enough to
design smart matter and utility fog unless you are already using less
advanced nanotech to build them. I also don't think you can design
computers more than a few generations in advance of the ones you already
have, for essentially the same reason.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:45 MST