= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on What I would like the SIAI to publish - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (218)
The "wannabe-critics" are actual chemists and physicists who actually work at nanoscale - Drexler advocates tend to fit neither qualification - and who have written long lists of reasons why this stuff can't possibly work and why Drexler is to engineering what Ayn Rand is to philosophy.
I'm sure they'll change their tune when there's the slightest visible progress on any of Drexler's proposals; the existence proof would be pretty convincing.
Hah! A lot of the edits on that article seem to have been made by you!
Yep. Mostly written by Armondikov, who is said annoyed material scientist. I am not, but spent some effort asking other material scientists who work or have worked at nanoscale their expert opinions.
Thankfully, the article on the wiki has references, as I noted in my original comment.
So what were the priors that went into your considered opinion?