You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JoshuaZ comments on UFAI cannot be the Great Filter - Less Wrong Discussion

35 Post author: Thrasymachus 22 December 2012 11:26AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 December 2012 02:31:22AM 1 point [-]

What if post-singularity civilizations expand at the speed of light?

This is sort of valid but it is extremely unlikely. Even if expansion occurs at say .99% of light then the problem will still exist. One needs to be expanding extremely close (implausibly close?) to the speed of light for this explanation to work.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 December 2012 07:30:58AM *  1 point [-]

(implausibly close?)

We have particle accelerators that achieve Lorentz factors of 7,500. I proposed a Lorentz factor of 22. Never mind a superintelligence, we, are on the brink of being able to accelerate nanomachines to that speed (assuming we had nanomachines).

The only implausible thing is being able to decelerate non-destructively at the target, and none of us have given that even 5 whole minutes of serious thought, never mind a couple trillion superintelligent FLOPS.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 25 December 2012 01:32:39PM 1 point [-]

Here are my five minutes: nanomachines need to carry a charge to be accelerable, right? Well, it works the other way too - they will decelerate on their own in destination's Van Allen belts.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 December 2012 06:58:25PM 2 points [-]

They don't actually decelerate in the Van Allen belts, though. Magnetic fields apply a force to a charged particle perpendicular to it's direction of motion. F*V = Deceleration Power = 0. Also worth noting that a charged nanomachine has a much higher mass/charge ratio than the usual charged particles (He2+, H+, and e-), so it would be much less affected.

I was actually thinking of neutralizing the seed at the muzzle to avoid troublesome charge effects.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 31 December 2012 07:14:07PM 0 points [-]

Nanobot is hard to de-accelerate, but a robust femtobot might do better.

Hmm, using the femtobot, would it being charged and entering a conductive material slow it down due to that induction thingy, like a magnet dropped down a copper tube? Or maybe having a conductive right shaped bot, and launching it into a ludicrously strong magnetic field of a neutron star or something.?

Another option is to launch a black hole in front of it, and give both the probe and black hole extremely strong negative charge; the black hole will absorb impacting matter (also solving the problem of interstellar dust) slowing it down by averaging, simultaneously clearing a safe path for the probe and gently pushing it back as it gets closer and the charges repel.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 December 2012 10:45:08PM 1 point [-]

Femto? Explain.

The black hole idea is interesting. Does it even have to be a black hole? Any big non-functional absorbent mass at the front would do, right? Maybe only a black hole would be reliable...

Maybe not even a mass. If the probe had a magnetic field, you might be able to do things with the bussard ramjet idea to slow you down and control (charged) collisions.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 01 January 2013 05:47:27PM 0 points [-]

not very good but good enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtotech

ANd I were just brainstorming, your guess is as good as mine. But yea a tiny neutron star might work.