I think you're substantially underestimating the difficulty here, and the proportion of effort which goes into the "starter pack" (aka vitamins) relative to steelworking.
If you're interested in taking this further, I'd suggest:
While the "autofac" might not be feasible at this time, it's interesting to consider how to minimize the required size of a civilization that's productive enough to survive on eg Mars or an asteroid.
To be clear, I think the autofac concept - with external "vitamins" for electronics etc - is in fact technically feasible right now and if teleoperated has been for decades. It's not economically competitive, but that's a totally different target.
This was a very interesting post. A few scattered thoughts, as I try to take a step back and take a big-picture economic view of this idea:
What is an autofac? It is a vastly simplified economy, in the hopes that enough simplification will unlock various big gains (like gains from "automation"). Let's interpolate between the existing global economy, and Feynman's proposed 1-meter cube. It's not true that "the smallest technological system capable of physical self-reproduction is the entire economy.", since I can imagine many potential simplifications of the economy. Imagine a human economy with everything the same, but no pianos, piano manufacturers, piano instructors, etc... the world would be a little sadder without pianos, but eliminating everything piano-related would slightly simplify the economy and probably boost overall productivity. The dream of the Autofac involves many more such simplifications, of several types:
The key part of the Autofac, the part that kept it from being built before, is the AI that runs it.
That's what's doing the work here.
We can't automate machining because an AI that can control a robot arm to do typical machinist things (EG:changing cutting tool inserts, removing stringy steel-wool-like tangles of chips, etc.) doesn't exist or is not deployed.
If you have a robot arm + software solution that can do that it would massively drop operational costs which would lead to exponential growth.
The core problem is that currently we need the humans there.
To give concrete examples, a previous company where I worked had been trying to fully automate production for more than a decade. They had robotic machining cells with machine tools, parts cleaners and coordinate measuring machines to measure finished parts. Normal production was mostly automated in the sense that hands off production runs of 6+ hours were common, though particular cells might be needy and require frequent attention.
What humans had to do:
This kind of thing is why I'm paying a lot of attention to Tesla these days. They seem like the likeliest candidate to close the loop first. Obsessed with robotics, vertical integration, and manufacturing automation. Emitting slogans like "the machine that makes the machine" and "the factory is the product".
Yes. The alternate approach to achieving a self-reproducing machine is to build a humanoid robot that can be dropped into existing factories, then gradually replace the workers that build it with robots. That path may well be the one that succeeds. Either path delivers an enormous expansion of industrial capabilities.
I do not intend to be rude by saying this, but I firmly believe you vastly overestimate how capable modern VLMs are and how capable LLMs are at performing tasks in a list, breaking down tasks into sub-tasks, and knowing when they've completed a task. AutoGPT and equivalents have not gotten significantly more capable since they first arose a year or two ago, despite the ability for new LLMs to call functions (which they have always been able to do with the slightest in-context reasoning), and it is unlikely they will ever get better until a more linear, reward loop, agentic focused learning pipeline is developed for them and significant amount of resources are dedicated to the training of new models with a higher causal comprehension.
So now we can say "a machine shop is capable of manufacturing itself from steel and a copy of its electronics, given enough time."
I think you're underestimating the complexity of inputs to a modern machine shop. For example, they need tool bits that can drill/mill steel; these don't last forever and are a major cost.
Nowadays we use carbide bits, but we used to use steel bits to cut steel. It's called high speed steel. It differs from regular steel by being a different crystal structure, that is harder (and more brittle). It used to be perfectly common to cut a steel-cutting tool out of steel, then apply heat treatment to induce the harder crystal structure, and use the hardened tool to cut the softer original steel. It's one of the reasons I specified steel instead of aluminum or brass.
The machine shop can use a tool until it wears down too much, then un-harden it (a different heat treatment), cut it back to have a sharp edge again, and then re-harden. Steel really is amazing stuff.
I've looked into machine tool techniques pretty closely, and I believe I can make them with only 2% by weight that's not steel or lubricant. In a lot of ways, it's going back to the designs they used a hundred years ago, before they had good plastics or alloys. For example, the only place you HAVE to use plastic is as a flexible wire insulation.
I welcome your suggestions as to inputs I may have overlooked.
So...the entire industrial economy is basically an autofac. What you're trying to do is simplify it, replacing eg plastics with more steel. But you seem to be expecting that to reduce costs, and the reason people use eg injection-molded plastics instead of steel enclosures is because it's cheaper. Using carbide bits instead of "high-speed steel" (which requires uncommon metals, btw) is worthwhile, and by replacing things with alternatives that smart specialists have decided are not as good, you're reducing the overall "replication factor/capability" and input-output efficiency relative to "the entire current industrial economy" as a competing design. The same goes for occasional human intervention for eg maintenance and lubrication - people have decided it's more efficient overall, despite humans being expensive. It doesn't make sense to take a design (for an entire economy, or anything else), add a bunch of arbitrary restrictions and simplifications, and expect it to be better in a way that reduces the costs of its products.
Well, I seem to be talking to someone who knows more about alloys than I do. How many alloys do you think I need? I figure there's a need for Neodymium Iron Boron, for motor cores, Cast Iron in the form of near-net-shape castings for machine frames, and some kind of hardenable tool steel for everything else. But I'm uncertain about the "everything else".
I don't think the "staggering number of standardized alloys" needs to alarm us. There are also a staggering number of standardized fasteners out there, but I think 4 sizes of machine screws will suffice for the Autofac. We don't need the ultimate in specialized efficiency that all those alloys give us.
Well, I seem to be talking to someone who knows more about alloys than I do.
Maybe. But what I know tends to be very patchy, depending on what rabbit holes I happen to have gone down at various times.
I figure there's a need for Neodymium Iron Boron, for motor cores,
I hadn't thought about magnetics at all, or anything exotic. I was just talking about basic steel.
Unless I'm mixed up, NdFeB is for permanent magnets. You might not need any permanent magnets. If you do, I believe also you need a big solenoid, possibly in an oven, to magnetize them. Said solenoid needs a metric butt-ton of current when it's on, by the way, although it probably doesn't have to be on for long.
Inductor and electromagnet cores, including for motors, are made out of "electrical steel", which is typically cut to shape in thin plates, then laminated with some kind of lacquer or something for insulation against eddy currents. You can also use sintered ferrite powders, which come in a bewildering array of formulations, but if you're just worried about motors, you'd probably only really need one or two.
Those plates are an example of a generalized issue, by the way. I think those plates are probably normally ...
Macroscopic self-replicators are extremely powerful, and provide much of the power of nanotech without relying on nanotech. Seems like they might be worth mentioning more often as a rhetorical tool against those who dismiss anyone who mentions nanotechnology.
Back when I read about people claiming a RepRap can reproduce itself, I felt like the claim implied it would build the electronics of the new RepRap from scratch as well and was confused since obviously a 3D printer can't double as a chip fab. The gold standard for a self-replicating machine for me is something like plants, which can turn high-entropy raw materials like soil and ores into itself given a source of energy. I guess you could talk about autotrophic self-reproducing machines that can do their thing given a barren planet and sunlight, and hetero...
I would love to see someone actually do this.
Just out of curiousity, how many of those tools have you personally run? How many have you built and/or maintained?
How much of a loss of precision would we expect in one generation of autofacs?
As a concrete example, let's say one of the components of an autofac is a 0.03125 inch (±0.1 thousandths) CNC drill bit. Can your autofac make another such drill bit out of the same material and at the same level of precision?
If not, maybe we have to ship in the drill bits as well. But there are a large number of things like this, and at some point you've got a box that can assemble copies of itself from prefabricated parts, but uses a pretty standard supply chain to obtain those prefabricated parts. Which, to be clear, would still be pretty cool.
There are standard ways to make more precise tools from less precise tools. The methods were invented 1750-1840 to allow upgrading handmade metal tools to the precision of thousandths of inches we enjoy today. We just have to apply such methods a little bit at every generation to keep the level of precision constant.
This has parallels with how the factory-building game Factorio presents things. The thing that makes Factorio fun[1] is how it abstracts away those pesky prohibitively complex nuances of manufacturing & automation so that everything can feasibly be automated quickly and scaled ad infinitum. For example:
I’ve been avoiding Factorio. I watched a couple of videos of people playing it, and it was obviously the most interesting game in the world, and if I tried it my entire life would get sucked in. So I did the stoic thing, and simply didn’t allow myself to be tempted.
You could build one windmill per Autofac, but the power available from a windmill scales as the fifth power of the height, so it probably makes sense for a group of Autofacs to build one giant windmill to serve them all.
The swept area of a wind turbine scales as the second power of the height (assuming constant aspect ratios), and the velocity of wind increases with ~1/7 power with height. Since the power goes with the third power of the velocity, that means overall power ~height^2.4. The problem is that the amount of material required scales roughly with ...
If I did not see a section in your bio about being an engineer who has worked in multiple relevant areas, I would dismiss this post as a fantasy from someone who does not appreciate how hard building stuff is; a "big picture guy" who does not realise that imagining the robot is dramatically easier than designing and building one which works.
Given that you know you are not the first person to imagine this kind of machine, or even the first with a rough plan to build one, why do you think that your plan has a greater chance of success than other indivi...
I'm glad you wrote this, it adds some interesting context that was unfamiliar to me for this market I opened around a week ago: https://manifold.markets/dogway/which-is-the-earliest-year-well-hav#wji33pv4fcj
I was entertaining the possibility of a powder or fluid-based metal as an input to a 3D printer which works today for fabricating metal components and seems likely to improve significantly with time. I was considering this avenue to be the most likely way that the threshold of full fidelity-preserving self-reproduction is passed, but I have no expertise...
Because most of the software runs in a data center remote from the Autofac, it can be shared between Autofacs. This allows it to not have to think very hard when things are boring, and very hard when something goes wrong.
"most", but not all. How does the Autofac generate the control system for the next Autofac? Doesn't this require a chip fab, or are we just hand waving away the need for more processors and just saying we will import them from outside like we do the raw materials?
I'm not quite sure how much of an AI is needed here. Current 3d printing uses no AI and barely a feedback loop. It just mechanistically does a long sequence of preprogrammed actions.
Some notes on self-replicating machines: Complexity/precision: The dexterity required to move a few wires into a crude machine is far in excess of the dexterity of that crude machine. Generally, designing something which can produce itself is complex for that reason, the relationship between complexity and ability to create complex things is nonlinear, difficult to affect in useful ways, and hard to measure without creating real test objects. Very complex objects(like organisms) can assemble ‘copies’ of themselves, through complex and error prone processes.
The smallest technological system capable of physical self-reproduction is the entire economy.
Going from this to a 1M cube is a big jump. This comment is the basis for the enthusiasm for space colonies etc. E.g. SpaceX says 1 million people are needed, vs 1M cube, huge uncertainty in the scale of the difference. To me, almost all the difficulty is in the inputs, especially electronics.
I think you're missing a few parts. The Autofac (as specified) cannot reproduce the chips and circuit boards required for the AI, the cameras' lenses and sensors, or the robot's sensors and motor controllers. I don't think this is an insurmountable hurdle: a low-tech (not cutting-edge) set of chips and discrete components would serve well enough for a stationary computer. Similarly, high-res sensors are not required. (Take it slow and replace physical resolution with temporal resolution and multiple samples.)
Second, the reproduced Autofacs should be built ...
I really like this idea, especially the part about doing it on Baffin Island. A few questions/comments/concerns
I've wanted to build a self-reproducing machine since I was 17. It's forty-five years later, and it has finally become feasible. (I've done a few other things along the way.) I'm going to describe one such device, and speculate as to its larger implications. It's a pretty detailed design, which I had to come up with to convince myself that it is feasible. No doubt there are better designs than this.
The Autofac
Here's a top-level description of the device I'm thinking of. It's called an Autofac, which is what they were called in the earliest story about them. It looks like a little metal shed, about a meter cubed. It weighs about 50 kilograms. There's a little gnome-sized door on each end. It's full of robot arms and automated machine tools. It's connected to electricity and by WiFi to a data center somewhere. It has a front door, where it accepts material, and a back door, where it outputs useful objects, and cans of neatly packaged waste. You can communicate with it, to tell it to make parts and assemble them into useful shapes. It can do all the metalworking operations available to a machinist with a good shop at their disposal. In return, it occasionally asks for help or clarification.
One particular thing it can be told to make is another one of itself. This is of course the case we're all interested in. Here's what that looks like. You feed a 60kg package of steel castings, electronics, and other parts, into the door at one end. It starts by building another shed, next to the other end. The two sheds are butted up next to each other, so the rain can't get in. Once it's enclosed, there is no visible progress for about a month, but it makes various metalworking noises. Then it announces that it's done. The second shed is now another Autofac, and can be carried away to start the process elsewhere. There's also a can full of metal scrap and used lubricant, which has to be disposed of responsibly. This process can be repeated a number of times, at least seven, to produce more offspring. Eventually the original Autofac wears out, but by then it has hundreds of descendants.
The software
The key part of the Autofac, the part that kept it from being built before, is the AI that runs it. Present-day VLMs (vision-language models) are capable of performing short-deadline manual tasks like folding laundry or simple tool use. But they are deficient at arithmetic, long term planning and precisely controlling operations. Fortunately we already have software for these three purposes.
First, of course, we have calculators for doing arithmetic. LLMs can be taught to use these. In the real world, machinists constantly use calculators. The Autofac will be no different.
Second, there is project planning software that lets a human break down an engineering project into tasks and subtasks, and accommodate changes of plan as things go wrong. We can provide the data structures of this software, initially constructed by humans, as a resource for the AI to use. The AI only has to choose the next task, accomplish it or fail, and either remove it from the queue or add a new task to fix the problem. There are thousands of tasks in the life of an Autofac; fortunately the AI doesn't need to remember them all. The project planning software keeps track of what has been done and what needs to be done.
Third, there are programs that go from the design of a part to a sequence of machine tool movements that will make that part, and then controls the machine tool motors to do the job. These are called Computer Aided Manufacturing, or CAM. Using CAM relieves the AI of the lowest level responsibilities of controlling motor positions and monitoring position sensors. This software doesn't do everything, of course, which is why being a machinist is still a skilled job. The AI needs to clamp parts in place for machining operations, notice when something goes wrong, change plans flexibly, and many other intelligent activities.
When the AI runs into a problem it doesn't know how to handle, it can ask a human for help. This is where the language part of the vision-language model comes into play. The questions and answers from any one Autofac will need to be fed back to all Autofacs, so they don't also ask the same question. As the number of Autofacs grows exponentially, the amount of human assistance to any one Autofac will have to drop exponentially. This requires updating the VLM on the fly; I'm not sure how that will work.
The VLM will require training data to specialize it into being an Autofac. There are thousands of books about metalworking, providing cheap training data. Even books more than a century old can be useful; metalworking hasn't changed that much. There are also thousands of hours of video of machinists building things, while explaining what they're doing and what they're thinking. This is very useful, provided the VLM is smart enough to generalize from humans to a robot arm. Finally, we could teleoperate the Autofac, to carry out all the needed task. At the same time, the operator could narrate their thoughts. This would provide the highest-quality training data, but at a high price.
Because most of the software runs in a data center remote from the Autofac, it can be shared between Autofacs. This allows it to not have to think very hard when things are boring, and very hard when something goes wrong. Since a lot of machining is just watching the machines until they finish, this lets us economize on computer power during the boring bits.
Economics
The smallest technological system capable of physical self-reproduction is the entire economy. Obviously it's not possible to duplicate the entire economy. But because we can take inputs from the economy, we can design a machine capable of converting these inputs into a copy of itself. The goal is to minimize and simplify inputs to the extent possible. If an Autofac is going to be economically reasonable, it has to capable of providing services that exceed the cost of its inputs. There have been self-reproducing machines since the 1950s, that require complex manufactured parts, and provide no particularly useful service. This is not that. The Autofac described above is a profitable device all by itself. There is a small but lively industry of custom parts manufacturing-- send them a CAD design, and they'll send you the parts by return mail. This is exactly what the Autofac is designed to do, when it's not building another one of itself.
How long is the self-reproduction time?
It's been observed many times that a machine shop is capable of manufacturing any part of itself, given steel, a machinist and enough time. It has just become feasible to embed the intelligence of a machinist into electronics. So now we can say "a machine shop is capable of manufacturing itself from steel and a copy of its electronics, given enough time."
We can make an estimate of how much machinist time is required for a machine shop to duplicate itself. We can do that as follows. We know the weight and cost of all the machines. We can find the resource cost by assuming the machines are made out of mostly steel, and assume that all the remaining cost was the labor used in manufacture. Notice that this is an overestimate of the labor cost, because it ignores transportation, marketing, profit and all other costs. Also, the resource cost is relatively small-- steel is cheap compared to the things we make from it. We can assume that all this labor is provided by our robot arms, at the same speed as a human. And from this, we can work out how long it takes for our machine to produce another one of itself.
The estimate comes out to about a year for a machinist to build another machine shop. I confirmed this estimate by asking a professional machinist, so that's weak evidence that it's not wildly off.
The cubic meter of an Autofac contains, roughly:
They're all about 1/5 the scale of ordinary machine tools. Machine tools scale quite nicely. As long as motion velocity remains constant, making the machine smaller by a factor X makes it faster by X, but strain, stiffness and accuracy are the same. In this case, the factor is X=5. (Except that electric motors get bigger in proportion as you scale everything else down. But it's not bad. Also the oven doesn't scale right either. But that's small for compared to the size of the whole machine shop, so even if it gets relatively bigger, that's not too bad.)
The Autofac doesn't have to sleep or rest, so that's a factor of four speedup. But it's clumsier than a human, so lets double the time. So the estimated self-reproduction time is (1/5)*(1/4)*2 of a year, or five weeks.
This may be an underestimate, if there are marvelous machines used in the assembly of machine tools, that I've forgotten to include, but which provide great productivity with little labor. I think I know enough about the production of machine tools that I've included all such machines: that's why I include specialized machines for wire drawing, motor winding, sheet metal rolling, screw manufacture, and grinding ball bearings.
The original Autofac is only capable of building small parts, but it can also build a somewhat larger Autofac, which in turn can build one even larger. Autofacs can scale up to build whatever you want. It turns out that because the time is proportional to the scale, it's optimal to do as much self-reproduction as you can at the smallest scale, only scaling up at the end, when you need to.
Next Steps
So at first the Autofac is a Minimum Viable Product. This is nifty, but the market for small custom parts is limited. What's the next step in scaling? It turns out that much of the cost is in electricity (3 kW, continuously). To make our own electricity, we have the Autofac build a windmill generator. You could build one windmill per Autofac, but the power available from a windmill scales as the fifth power of the height, so it probably makes sense for a group of Autofacs to build one giant windmill to serve them all. (I haven't worked out what tools and materials are needed to do this.)
Most of the input is steel. Scaling from the size of the US economy, an Autofac requires 92% steel by weight, 6% lubricant and cutting fluid, 2% everything else: copper wire, refractory clay, grinding wheels, abrasive powder, insulation, tungsten welding tips, rustproof paint, all the electronics. The steel can come in as rods, plates, and pieces cast into various shapes. The Autofac itself can roll the plates into sheet, and draw the rods into wires. So the next thing we need the Autofacs to build is a steel mill, to turn rock, air and water into cast steel. There's a minimum size for a steel mill, which is pretty big, set by the rate of heat loss from a mass of molten steel. It doesn't make sense to have a heat of steel smaller than a cubic meter (haven't actually done any calculations here, just guessing.) That's enough steel to build 100 Autofacs, and if an Autofac needs a reload once a month, and a steel mill can make five heats a day, one steel mill is enough to keep up with 15000 Autofacs.
Finding iron ore isn't a problem: iron is the fourth most common element in the earth's crust, and you have to make some effort to find rock that doesn't contain iron. (As a child in Southern California, I used to amuse myself by dragging a magnet through the dirt and pulling it out fuzzy with iron ore.) If you heat up iron-rich rock to white heat, and then blow hydrogen through it, the iron gets reduced before most other elements, and forms a metallic sponge. After you've spongified most of the iron, you separate it, melt it in a crucible, add an appropriate amount of carbon, and pour it into molds. Presto, steel! The hydrogen you can get by electrolyzing water, and the carbon by extracting carbon dioxide from the air, and reducing it with hydrogen. I haven't worked out how much electricity this all takes; I hope not too much.
Given sources for steel and electricity, all we need to supply is the Autofac "starter pack", which weighs about a kilogram and contains all the non-steel parts described above. We need to drive down the cost for this as much as possible. We need to ride the learning curve for manufacturing the starter pack down, down, down.
The Baffin Island Plan
You probably aren't familiar with Baffin Island, so let me describe it. It's in the Canadian Arctic, between Hudson Bay and Greenland. It's bigger than California, but is home to only 15,000 people. It produces iron ore, from one iron mine, some native handicrafts, and no other major exports. It's mostly caribou-infested tundra, but there are substantial areas of barren rock. It is usually below freezing, constantly windy, and much of it is dark six months of the year. I love it; it's perfect.
There are portions of Baffin Island of great natural beauty or local economic importance. We will avoid those portions. That still leaves 400,000 km^2, enough for over a billion Autofacs. (The limit is not actual land area; the limit is the windmill spacing for wind power. The actual Autofacs take up a relatively small amount of the area, leaving room for the caribou.)
Here's the story. We put one Autofac on one of the less habitable parts of Baffin Island. At first, we have to provide electricity, steel, and Autofac starter packs. After one year, we have a thousand Autofacs, and they're starting to build windmills and a steel mill. Now we only have to provide starter packs. Another two years and a billion starter packs later, we have a billion Autofacs. Now we can really get to work. About a third of the Earth's industrial capacity is ours to do with as we will. We can