michael_nielsen

Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexler%E2%80%93Smalley_debate_on_molecular_nanotechnology …

Looks like Smalley has been proven right but the subsequent failures to develop this technology.

It's true that of the potentially transformative technologies of the late 20th century, nanotech has been one of the slowest to materialize. But then, one could say the same of nuclear fusion, for which I still hold out high hopes.

I tend to side with Kurzweil regarding his analysis of this debate, though Smalley's argument were useful insofar as they forced more precise articulations of Drexler's vision. Additionally, my guess is that the "industrial" mode of thinking remains incongruent with this scale.

Meaning that we require a deeper understanding of complex atomic and molecular dynamics in order to generate systems capable of precise electro-magnetic or bio-chemical nudging in service of complex self-assembly. Here, tools like DeepMind are useful. Are we close? Hard to say.

And it's in this sense that Smalley's use of metaphors like "falling in love" at the molecular scale are relevant, as such complex processes of self-assembly are precisely that: complex processes which are more similar to people falling in love than to building a car.

Metaphors about love and fat fingers are fun but the real problem AFAIK is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Atoms and molecules are not hard sand or diamond particles writ small, they are wave functions describing the probability events will happen.

After all this time Drexler & his myriad fans have still failed to convince the vast majority of chemists & physicists & more importantly failed to convince reality in the form of actually working machines, that he has figured out a way to cheat Heisenberg on such small scales.