C/NET Investor covers nanotechnology
from the Most-scientists-believe? dept.
A fairly decent investment-oriented article on nanotechnology appeared on the CNET News.com website ("Is small the next big thing?", by Tiffany Kary, 11 February 2002; the article also appears on the ZDnet website at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-833739.html). As the article notes, "The revolution won't happen overnight, and even nanotechnology's biggest supporters acknowledge that the field could become the next craze–think dot-coms–in which hype outruns real application and business sense. Nevertheless, recent developments indicate that the science is progressing well beyond the "white paper" stage. For starters, the government, tech titans and venture capitalists are pouring money into the field, producing breakthroughs that have enabled several companies to make nanotechnology product announcements. These prospects have grabbed VCs' attention."
The article notes the increasing level of research activity, government and private financing, and interest by the investment community, and surveys important work by companies ranging from giants like IBM and Hewlett-Packard down to start-ups such as Nantero.
Looking farther ahead, the article makes the somewhat incredible claim that, while nanorobots are hypothetical, "most scientists believe there will be some form of "molecular assembler" within the next 20 years, and that the device will serve a concrete purpose." The article then follows a typical pattern in presenting of the ideas proposed by Eric Drexler, followed by the "grey goo" willies of Bill Joy, and the distancing dance skeptics perform when confronted with long-term possibilities of advance molecular nanotechnology. The article quotes Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, a nanotech-oriented venture capital firm: According to the article, Wolfe said he has seen plenty of business proposals based on such ideas, but he considers them implausible.
"It's utter nonsense–thoughts that you can change the economy because you can manufacture things instantaneously at your desk by just hitting a button," Wolfe said. . . . As far as Wolfe is concerned, any technology based on the "Drexlerian vision of nanotech"–that is, the self-replicating assembler–should be put in its place. These far-out ideas should "promote ethical debates and get people involved," but "investors should not be looking at that type of thing," he said.
[Thanks to David Wallace Croft and Patrick Underwood for posting a notices about this item.]
February 12th, 2002 at 6:16 PM
Misunderstanding of artificial life
Well it's pretty clear that the author of this article didn't do enough homework but since CNet is hardly the acme of scientific journalism, I'm not really surprised.
However one thing that did occur to me as I read it, is the many of the misconceptions both positive and negative stem from one thing: is it possible to have replicating machines?
Of course I know that self-rep is possible but I don't think this concept has been really been made clear to the public. I think there hasn't been enough emphasis in the popular press about this issue. Joy's worries stem from this concept, a lot of the hype stems from this concept.
Just pointing to software viruses and worms is not enough. Some university some where has to make a robot that can assemble another robot out of shelf parts. The public needs to see this as an example proof.
They need to understand why it is dangerous to go to the next step and build a robot (I guess "robot" really isn't a good term at this point because the organism, synthetic though it may be, will be alive.) that can build another robot out of raw materials.
People need to see this to understand that artificial life is already possible and a non-issue. Then they will understand why Joy's arguments are partially valid yet partially faulty and why those that dismiss assemblers are partially valid yet partially wrong.