Would a grey goo scenario be possible?

Construct space ventilation
OR
Re-use heat as energy source

>re-use waste heat

AI uprising just doesn't seem possible, what with decades of pop cultures and the generally agreed 3 rules of robotics, plus nukes>electronic
No clue on what other user think about singularity tho

I mean, it could work, it's all hypothesising really

I never said anything about an uprising. Just the creation of an AI. Why is it bullshit?

> nukes>electronics

an advance AI """smart""" enough to take and use information all over the Internet could easily use nukes against us

Dunno, ask him, I personally think AI is the natural course of virtual advancement

Somebody makes 1 nanite that destroys other matter to make another nanite every X seconds

at time X there's 2
at 2X there's 4
at 3X there's 8
16, 32, 64, 128, 256...

lets say that time X is 30 seconds. After one day, starting with just one single nanite, we've got 2^2880 nanites. In plane text, that is this many ninites:

925523631809047918507808915013174343006990497976890307491533760976942825412157396385031528785372251032030681400901642002477833426767184387343955705795880553555370415324970608869130154498070284494448923578669897222826668401826976211221365596131277796416266571966724828944116673977324537000209332135978721001772645860372045732168904445696021852574128055463209732583264685254075110043462318733537248110491605697582541726845159886716870893985897356569465053999819856631633580110898489602220450743708504681825102467021819092022398105605148036506790842119289330257283500916937150359265472775283546040122301267920115794988581740133497814507809226316080565540621553323472656635010156823816381991466730828433457348289531880490713853927338907650295839195196291190183108782773867294313240177739054272302997307305371870273048855559958177900851568273553787307555754789395471794176

that's from ONE DAY

Physical locks are a thing, you don't seriously think people let their roomba hold a nuke key right?

Yeah what about use of energy?

Im not denying what u say, its right mathematically but in real life that nanite must use energy to produce another nanite, probably without having any loss (impossible as every process losses some energy to the universe)

I mean, you don't even have to do math to figure this out
Nanomite eat, nanomite recreate, nanomites eats, nanomites recreates and so forth

I know but probably the other user was talking about an hypothetical world were there are actual "robots" or physical AI. In that case we could be fucked up easily

They could easily acquire access to power plants and further recreate
Then when they get too big, they either form their own energy plants or collapse under their own mass

So ultimately, it's not about whether the nanomites survives or not, its about humanity being reduced to nothingness and the earth a bare bone husk

Well yea, obviously, but wouldn't you want to play hide n seek with remorseless killing machines?

Lol

Exactly its not about if the nanite survives so tell me how the first nanite could create an exact same nanite capable of doing exact the same thing without lossing energy and conserving enough to keep reproducing and gaining energy at the same time

It'll be great, you running across some old scrapyard where hopes and dreams once live away from this hulking metal creature formed out of cold calculation that look at you not as a man but rather a harmful peat to it's own existence

In the robot'a mind, you are nothing but a cockroach that need to be remove and it will do so with extreme prejudice

So really, buy a bunker and stock up and await the day Google doomed the world

I mean it could be possible which means it is or it could be not possible. And you know people said flying wasn't possible and it was and lots of other times they said it wasnt it was. so imo even if we say its not possible its still possible that it is possible(so its possible).

Creating AI isn't the problem. The idea of the AI singularity is that if people made an AI more intelligent than itself, then, that AI could make one more intelligent than itself. So on and so on is the singularity which implies no upper limit to intelligence. Which is believed to be a contradiction, thus disproving the initial assumption. So we can't make an AI more intelligent than ourselves. This doesn't really prove anything. That's why this is around where most people start to hate math.

I would love to see a robot trying to completely exterminate cockroaches from Earth.

I mean if it is his objective it won't stop till done, and we all know how cockroaches can't extinct, at leats not by us

Read the book "Prey" it is an interesting take on it. However, a grey goo wouldn't last long in nature, which tends to be extremely harsh towards non-biological things.

And that's exactly why it lead to human being chased down and gunned to death

>Terminate cockroaches, pest, harmful
>Terminate insects, pest, harmful
>Terminate animals, pest, harmful
>Terminate man, danger, extremely harmful

Dunno, a roving mass of consuming robot versus ripe, unharvested materials? Sounds like a buffet to me

If we could eliminate insects the entire nature course would colapse and yes we would die aswell so no

And now that I think about it, if we could build an AI intelligent enough to have the risk of killing thr human race. Wouldn't it actually be intelligent enough to know that if humans no longer exist, the AI's knowledge is going to reach its top? I mean, an AI can't invent things that aren't already invented or in other words it can't learn things without someonr inputting them into its "database" its like killing its own future

Imagine a small blob of goo gone rogue, say it's about the size of a Petri dish

>Blob target small power sources like batteries or phones, consume materials along the way
>Blob grow to human-size, actively seek better sources like cars and generators
>Assuming there's sufficient tech, blob would form internal energy converter, consume raw materials like coal or gas
>Blob reach tremendous size, exclusively target power plants and steam roll over everything
>Blob achieve super mass, collapse under own weight and explode due to internal generator

And that's why nano tech is some freaky shit

The risk of human disabling it would far outweight whether or not the AI care about it's own advancement

You can say it's almost an irrational reaction from the machine

Nice try but science just doesn't work that way

Make your point then, smug remarks don't advance argument

Irrational reaction, I like that
Though I can't really imagine an AI without an objective, now that I think about what u said, its like, without any objective making any "decision" at least to a robot its completely useless as It doesn't achieve nothing towards anything.

I'm the person this post responded to. Singularity bullshit ignores fundamental limits such as maximal possible information density to suggest "there are no limits to what the future will bring!"

AI is not entirely bullshit, but massively overblown, often with the same level of hand-waving "limits will disappear as technology progresses!"

Science and technology will improve. A lot. Doesn't mean there are no limits.

My point would be that to make anything, say a nanite or a gray goo, that is programmed to "eat" and reproduce infinitely is one thing. Starting to say that it could be able to build a power plant Inside itself to get energy is another one

You still didn't answered how the first nanite could even start. Just grnerating something that equalls to itself in every aspect without losing energy or having any kind of deterioration in the proceS is physically impossible

You're implying something like that could be created and could actually use the environment in that manner.

This is science fiction and has no place on Veeky Forums.

Re-read my post, I did state:"Only with sufficient tech"
A nanomite could have a sort of digital blueprint to assemble bits of materials into another functioning replica, these are all hypothesis about a what-if doomsday scenario so really, anything goes
We're literally discussing an AI revolution scenario senpai

I know about that but the idea of don't lossing energy to the environment doesn't exists. And its not because of lack of tech

That's why I said the blob is always on the move for energy, I don't get why you can't understand this

Blob eat, blob breed, blob hunt, repeat

I understand what u are saying, what u can't get is the idea of breeding something equally whis is inposiblr without detiriorating in some way

Well yea, I never deny that, that's why I even said this is somewhat sci-fi territory in the previous post
Hypothetical scenario about a hypothetical force of nature and it's hypothetical destructiveness, this is basically RP

>We're literally discussing an AI revolution scenario senpai

>space ventilation
AYY lmao

Same way bacteria can. By using energy and resources in their environment.

>Would a grey goo scenario be possible?

Seriously?!? Even under carefully controlled environments, nanites fail to work properly. You could stop a grey goo scenario, by just raising the humidity in the air, alternating the temperature, Bright ultra-violent light, etc.

By that logic, bacteria should have taken over the world by now.

Grey goo original referred to the idea that nanorobots could outcompete plants and bacteria completely fucking up the ecosystem because said nanobots would be inedible.

The outcompete plants part comes from the fact that solar cells are more efficient at sunlight conversion then plants are. The inedible part comes from the fact that plastic and other materials are so new that nothing has evolved to eat it. Inb4 bacteria that can sorta breakdown plastic.

Did you know it took millions of years for stuff to evolve to breakdown lignin?

The sci-fi scenario

And they have, it is difficult to find places on earth devoid of bacteria

Such a pandemic would be contained to the local planet, trapped by the star gravity, it's safe to assume we will be a space nation by the time we create this type of technology, so no big deal.

The Sci fi scenario of 'oops I spilled some nanobots' and the whole world turning into a blob of goo is unrealistic. The fact that not everything is a suitable feedstock and limited solar energy will prevent geometric growth.

Nope. first off, is wrong. The only nanites that would be able to reproduce would be the ones on the surface of the blob (the ones in the middle wouldn't be receiving the materials or energy necessary to reproduce themselves as they're just surrounded by other nanomachines). This leads to two options:
a) The nanomachine blob essentially spreads like a fire, with the inner parts dying out very quickly and the outer parts spreading slowly as the circumference of the blob increases.
b) the nanomachine blob acts as an organism to keep it's innards alive, which would entail the development of things analogous to blood vessels and capillaries. This means that to kill the innards all you would have to do would be to sever the capillaries, and also implies that the nanites are communicating with eachother either through electrical currents or radio waves. These both severely restrict the materials that the nanites can be built from meaning their destructive power could be reduced dramatically. It also means they have to have some sort of memory storage within them in order to organise themselves into these patterns, which again means they can't be made from certain stuff. This reduces their destructive power massively. Also both electromagnetic radiation and electrical currents can be disrupted easily, meaning they could be stopped this way.

Also, the nanomachines would have to have some form of energy supply. Supposing it's just hydrocarbons, they would act a lot like a fire and would be very easy to isolate (which would be all you needed to do to kill them off). If it was sunlight, just stop light from reaching them. Every form of energy the nanites would run on provides a way of stopping them.
Last but definitely not least, what said. This isn't just a limit of current tech, when building things as small as nanites they are intrinsically unstable. They can be broken apart with any number of things, though heat would be the most practical.

They have. We're just lucky they're each specialized in what they consume.

Grey goo would basically be like a super bacteria that can consume a ton of things and doesn't die or go dormant when exposed to temperatures outside of room temperature.

>They have
>And they have, it is difficult to find places on earth devoid of bacteria

They haven't at all. There's no planet-sized blob of bacteria like a grey goo scenario.

This entire thread is shit.

>>ultra-violent light
that's a great miss.
>>nanite
I see this word posted a lot, it means nothing.

>>These both severely restrict the materials that the nanites can be built from
I'm gonna say it, I'm gonna fucking say it, GRAPHENE! It's conductive, carbon nanotube based conductors are now rivaling copper in conductivity and not to mention we have carbon nanotube memory on the market. anandtech.com/show/9314/nantero-exits-stealth-using-carbon-nanotubes-for-nonvolatile-memory-with-dram-performance-unlimited-endurance

Shit, I guess I shouldn't have said graphene

Or if we have magical self replicating nanorobots that can process soil, silicon and aluminum are really fucking common, like double dig pic related. And don't even get me started on the dopants, you need fuck all of dopant to make semiconductors.

>>It also means they have to have some sort of memory storage within them in order to organise themselves into these patterns
nigga to reproduce themselves they will have to have some sort of memory storage system.

>> they are intrinsically unstable
do you have any facts to back up that claim? I'll buy metastable, but not unstable

>>easy to isolate
stuff that self-replicates is hard to control, we have a hell of a time controlling invasive species. But this really shouldn't be a big concern today because the basic technology necessary to make self replicating tiny robots does not exist.

>>temperature
current designs for mechanosynthesis tooltips are very sensitive to damn near everything. Not to mention that Drexler has estimated that molecular nanotechnology is going to be just as sensitive to radiation to biology

>N-no! It d-doesn't count!!
>Y-you are probably underage!!
>Go to /x/, b-before I cry more!!!

>current designs for mechanosynthesis tooltips are very sensitive to damn near everything. Not to mention that Drexler has estimated that molecular nanotechnology is going to be just as sensitive to radiation to biology
You're right. It's probably not possible. I was only stating some requirements that we would need for an actual grey goo-like scenario.

On a side note, I think all this AI stuff is irrelevant. The idea that grey goo will be an intelligent piece of mass making decisions about how to hunt down and take over power plants is just laughable. A non-intelligent bacteria-like situation makes more sense within the context of a gray goo scenario.

>current designs for mechanosynthesis tooltips are very sensitive to damn near everything. Not to mention that Drexler has estimated that molecular nanotechnology is going to be just as sensitive to radiation to biology
so even if grey goo were to be created, it could be stopped by radiation?

ah, but you asked if bacteria had taken over the world did you not? Given that the most common species on Earth are bacteria and that the mass of bacteria on earth probably rivals that of plants and animals, I would argue that this is the case:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

Yes, but we don't stop python in the everglades with neutron bombs. Radiation tends to kill everything else too.

A few remarks:
1) Even fires can be very difficult to control. Just look at all the huge wildfires we have. Just recently a wildfire in Alberta, Canada devastated a town called Fort McMurray. This is even taking into consideration that trees and forests are stationary. Gray goo might instead infect organics or machinery which would make controlling it's spread much more difficult. In such a case it would be more like containing a plague than containing a wildfire (even though a plague kills it's victims and speeds only at the 'circumference').
2) It isn't necessarily the case that it's 'fuel' is as simple as fuel for fire. The main comparison here is bacteria. There are many different types that eat many different things. Containing them by isolating their 'fuel' is simply not feasible in many cases. Not only because said fuel is often common but because said bacteria spread easily.
3) The claims you made about the materials required aren't unreasonable but you don't take into account the possibility that grey goo might actually be organic with it's own DNA.

I agree with other posters in this thread that point out that the major technical limitations would be temperature, radiation, and other things harmful to nanotechnology and bacteria/biological organisms.

How bad would it be if we didn't have a full blown grey goo scenario but instead the stuff spread like modern bacteria: visibly unnoticeable?

The way I see it, in the best case scenario it would depend on what it ate and what it produced as byproducts. In the best case scenario it's largely harmless but in the worst case scenario it can infect and kill people, infect and damage equipment, and possibly more. It wouldn't be the end of the world but it could be a serious problem.

>Can nanobots eat steel beams?

No, not in the slightest. It would literally need millions of years of evolution to adapt to Earth's environment for it to even have the hopes of not dying right away. And, that means coddling it the entire time to prevent quick death.

Then a year later no one gives a shit because x and y methods were used to essentially shield against its effects or render it harmless.

With engineering we don't need millions of years of evolution. Alternatively, with fast enough computers we can simulate millions of generations of evolution in a year