Eric Drexler | MSEP: What, Why, and How?

[@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104]

It's great to hear from Drexler again.

[@ats6136]

Eric is the OG 🐐

[@tomcraver9659]

I was unsure whether Eric is suggesting - a mass-audience/even-for-kids construction game/tool that could build from pre-made parts up to structures on the order of magnitude of some of the things done in Minecraft; OR - a 'for-engineers' tool that would do a more accurate physical simulation (roughly newtonian accuracy) for smaller constructs; OR - a 'Serious-Scientists' tool that always does the fullest practical simulation down to correctly simulated movements and constraints and other physical interactions of atoms or molecules. I'd like to see all three, and have them connected. - A kid (or hobbyist) might build a cool machine from pre-specified parts at the construction kit level, debug it functionally, then submit the whole thing to be verified at the 'newtonian-forces' simulation level, getting back information on issues with the design (motor too weak, torque on shaft would break it, etc) - An engineer might design a new part from molecules with a 'newtonian' approximation, then submit it to deep-physics simulation to fully characterize it under a variety of test loads, which would automatically generate a correct 'newtonian' level physical description and constraints, as well as a simple functional description for the construction kit level. - A scientist might develop support for adding accurate simulation of new molecules for inclusion in the deep physics simulation, thereby giving the engineering level a new molecular building block with specified benefits and capabilities.

[@humanityplus]

Thank you, Eric! Now, this is a talk worth listening to because it highlights what is on the horizon and why it needs to be designed.

[@mechadense]

25:05 Questions

[@booplaystoomuch3047]

Excellent breakdown of the latest tools, thank you!

[@valentinussofa4135]

Great lecture. Thank you🙏

[@Theodorus5]

Q&A should have been longer!

[@mechadense]

Awesome! Though I sure hope Godot being based on C++ isn't setting this up for failure. IMO a denotative programmatic CAD language (remotely akin to OpenSCAD, no modifications of hidden state) would be much better as a core. Then again, creating something like that from scratch would be a daunting task. (1/2)

[@mechadense]

Can recommend reading the german article of Henning Thielemann on why to avert C++ Title is not filter-frienfly I found :/ (2/2 modified)

[@tomcraver9659]

Alternaives to MSEP, maybe: "MOLES" - Molecular engineering systems. Also a reference to eventually scaling up to 'moles' of matter and beyond. Or "MOLDS" - Mol-ecular Design Systems, referencing shaping matter, but a perhaps unfortunate association with mold.

[@blueblimp]

Is there a website for this MSEP (Molecular Systems Engineering Platform) project? It sounds interesting.

[@blueblimp]

To answer my own question: search for "astera molecular systems".

[@Quinnatator]

Thank you! Was curious about this as well.

[@Theodorus5]

Excellent thank you

[@larrypalmer5177]

VR and AR would be valuable tools.

[@Tottorul]

Drexler is like my priest. I imagine I can cryopreserve myself and have nanobots reconnect my fractured body into its original shape and bring it back to life in the future to deal with depression and despair

[@oker59]

i take it you can't just plug in Drexler's nanosystmes in a Cerbras CS-2 and see if it can crank out a set of plans for how to go from either, proteins, dna, or even RNA(David Baker was actually excited by the work on rna nanotechnology) to some kind of second generation nano-manufacturing beyond wet-nano-manufacturing?

[@oker59]

One thing is for certain - I can't imagine going from today's wet-nanotechnology to some kind of second generation nano-manufacturing before the Russian/China problems escalate to WWIII. I'm hearing China's going to invade Taiwon before the end of the year. Can you get things going before then?

[@mechadense]

@@oker59 Richard Feynman had similar thoughts/worries when the first njuke happened. And described it as bad mindeset in retrospect. So written in "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman".

[@oker59]

@@mechadense I'm messing with Drexler and Co on purpose. A long time ago now, I tried to explain to Chris Phoenix/Eric Drexler that mathematics is about questioning assumptions, and idealizations(walking the fine line between over/under generalization) and that most people are not mathematical, that they are conditioned by upbringing and therefore don't question assumptions and make all kinds of over/under generalizations. They will not change, and therefore, the only way to deal with them is either war(if you can't leave them) or leave them. Drexler and Co don't like that and had a big pissy fit about it. Instead of being scientific and disproving me, they yelled and ranted and slammed doors and ran away. And, I still can't get an answer out of them. So, I mess with them.

[@CandidDate]

Could molecular machines be frictionless?

[@itisno1]

What's funny is Drexler was in the ai field & moved to nanotechnology. I wanted to pursue material science with an emphasis on nano tech but I figure, by the time I'm able to significantly contribute, AI will already be doing most of that work.

[@Ideagineer]

Get a load of those questions though "If you want us to blah blah blah" That's a statement bro. What is he in 1st grade?

[@mechadense]

If you mean 33:23 he says "If you want to speed things up …". But yes. The usual disbelieve in the value of predictions that are not right here and now this instant experimentally verifyable. No matter how fundamental, trivial and robust the predictions.

[@patrickwilkie5576]

Why not Blender? Why GODOT?

[@randompal9828]

this is insane

[@brettins]

The last two questions were pretty disrespectful and kind of ignorant when talking to the master of the field. His talk isn't the place where you get up and try to teach him something or convince him of your point of view. "Nature has done such good things, why do something other than nature?" and "why are you working on A when B needs to worked on? I think B is more important!". Sit down!

[@Fredjoe5]

I don't see them as disrespectful in any way. They were simply off-topic for what he'd intended to cover. Part of the issue of this field has been a lack of focus or a drifting in focus over the short-term achievable goals on the path to the longer-term goals. Organic solutions are great, but don't get us what we want in the end, and never will, because they operate within a different set of constraints, as Drexler pointed out. The final question's not wrong, but fails to understand that both short and long-term goals are needed, and we've had so many people looking pie-in-the sky for so long without doing the hard work of making the basics possible.

[@surangamadhaviesilva7572]

Though sure hope godot being based ❤ should have been longer than expected and them are and what you think about this one is suburban and then you are doing well and staying in the😢🎉😮😅

[@cocoweeedbee3808]

selforganizing lectrobots selfgrowing infrostructures nonbio neuralnet i have better name its universal molecular non bio replicating assembler of constructor-creation task non bio neural network of non bio neuromorphic neuro semantics based programmable matter medium design

[@randompal9828]

this guy has been reading too much Yudkowsky

[@spacefacts1681]

yudkowsky was in preschool when this guy was writing about this kinda stuff

[@macxlective]

Good to hear from Dr. Drexler again!