Helpful no doubt but not needed. A changed economy would do it. One example to sustain post scarcity without nanofabricators is to limit the amount that an individual can request. So imagine that on your app or when you go eat at a restaurant imagine instead of say it cost 5 dollars it says 5 daily. Meaning you can only get that item 5 times a day.

I think we live in a time of disruptive progress. If you see the humane kind since the beginning, the last century is disruptive, 100 year period in 10,000 + years of humans is pretty disruptive. Also, the discoveries that change the science take many years in be applied to a commercial level, for example Watson and Crick discover the DNA in 1953, between 1990-2003 the human genome project was aiming to sequence de entire human genome, and right now are more than 400 research projects in gene therapy. In the next decade you will see many genetic disorders been cure. The basic science is slow in our lifetime but disruptive to humankind

[deleted]

[deleted]

Nope. Probably won’t be ready in the next 15 years either.

Researchers in general rarely release stuff, sadly.

[deleted]

Not that I necessarily agree with OP but:

1. Papers are great promotion. Think of all the buzz that has now been created for Google MusicLM by only releasing their paper. Also, now that the paper is out, problems or limitations can be addressed by other researchers that will ultimately help Google. Really, the information/theory behind the model is not that important compared to an actual product or tool served.
2. Agreed!

New breakthroughs in general - can't rely on them in the same Moores law sense, but they still happen

I'd also argue I don't know that scientific progress has slowed per se, more we've sort of finished our backlog of stuff and it's just the newer stuff that's less easy to come by.

There's also the idea of, everything in retrospect seems faster - get a good list of the year to year big stuff, it might not be that different, but if like 6 big things happened in 2011 or whatever and you're like "eh nothing big has happened in like 2 months", those two months feel a lot closer, pressing, than the 2011 two months per event on average

Drexler outlines a vision for a nano-printer at the scale of a garage wall that can crank out a fully assembled, ready to drive new car every 15 minutes.

Small products can easily be assembled into larger objects - especially when the interfaces between parts are using nanotech to bond to one another.

Why do you think it won't be essential? Coz of UBI and UBR?

If we truly want to have scientific reasoning, then we have to consider your possibility as plausible.

But you, on the other hand, have to see everybody else's possibility as plausible as well.

we will see when it happens.

Over the past 20 years or so I've become convinced that people alone are not yet smart or skilled enough to produce this kind of technology. The technology is absolutely achievable. The most compelling example of this kind of "tech" is biology itself - living, growing things. Cells turn nano-scale work into macro-scale products every single moment of every day. People, working together under a large-scale, coordinated effort can eventually create machines capable of this same feat. But...I think we will need AI assistance to get there. My hope is that an AGI can assist us on the path to this goal within the next several years. But without AGI, I fear it will be a long time.

I agree but I also think we are on the threshold of a time of rapid scientific advancement. As an example, we’ve known about protein folding and gene function for decades so advances driven by AlphaFold or CRISPR may not qualify as disruptive discoveries but they will lead to revolutionary changes in our approach to medicine and our understanding of underlying biology. That same process is happening across multiple fields where the foundational science is understood but rapid technological advances are transforming the way that knowledge is used.

Yeah, I just thought you might have been being sarcastic haha.

I agree that burden of knowledge probably isn’t that big of a factor tho. I just chalk it up to there being less “unknowns” or incorrect ideas that need to be disrupted then there were in the past. It’s similar to how the rate of new “land discovery” has slowed down since the days of Christopher Columbus as well right? It’s simply because we’ve discovered most of the land on Earth and now it’s hard to come by new undiscovered areas. Exact same thing is happening with science most likely.

Perhaps. I tend to have a Rodney Brooks opinion of agi. Very possible but more complicated than we think and I sayvthat even with the advances in chatgpt.

I did. Some is always a compliment. One thing I read about is thr burden of knowledge is higher...like it takes more time for people to learn something but my problem with this take is I feel like good science is the ability to consolidate information..for example for us to be able to have a nuclear powered engine in an aircraft carrier we had to have a diesel engine which was born from a steam engine. I don't know anyone who makes steam engines anymore nor does someone need to learn how to make a steam engine in order to make a nuclear reactor engine. Isn't science about consolidating old science?

Yup, artists and writers are inherently biased to create melodrama rather than realistic depictions of the future. It sells better, but people get unrealistic notions from it.

Stable Riffusion

[deleted]

History tells you that values change over time as scarcity decreases (technology also changes values regardless of scarcity). Human values are becoming more altruistic over time. Companies were more selfish 100 years ago than they are now because people were more selfish (due to scarcity).

Tech companies have some of the least selfish people working there compared to other industries. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that they are selfless (any complex system eventually develops defense mechanisms in order to survive i.e selfishness). I agree that change requires pressure. I am just pointing out that the pressure ALREADY exists.

That mite because our understanding of things in general is more or less prefect. You dont need a new theory of reality to make full dive vr, AGI, ect.

Lmao… Hopefully you meant that as compliment bro. Either way that’s how I’m gonna take this. 😂

> Any idea of "wealth redistribution" seems ludicrous to me. Why is it not happening already?

Philanthropists like Bill Gates are already doing this on a large scale? 🤔