From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sun May 23 1999 - 13:30:42 MDT
"Raymond G. Van De Walker" <rgvandewalker@juno.com> writes:
> The big advantage of ufog is that it provides many of the advantages of
> nanotech while exposing one to fewer hazards than a solution in which
> general-purpose assemblers are ubiquitous.
It is often easier to rely on finished products than having the
production system itself (only DIY people, survivalists and
programmers disagree :-).
> However, it also looks like ufog is pretty hazardous by itself. Think of
> the lung disease that could be caused by misprogrammed ufog.
The problem seems to be that it is impossible to test very complex
systems for all possible contingencies, and this will likely cause
trouble when designing ufog. How do you convince the customers it is
perfectly safe?
You get the same problem with AI: what testing would be required
before an AI program was allowed to completely run a nuclear power
plant? Most likely a lot, and even then I guess insurance premiums
would go up and if somethind did go wrong people would be sued to
hell. But having humans is allright, as long as they have had a
certain education and passed certain less stringent tests.
> Also, the value would then shift from the material to the intellectual
> property, right?
> Intellectual property however, can be cheap.
Values are already shifting from material to intellectual values.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:47 MST