Talk:Self-replicating machine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
JSimmonz (talk | contribs)
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
m Removing obsolete {{Afd-merge from}} Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/AFDMergeFromCleaner
 
(278 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|Self-replicating machines in fiction|Self-replicating machines in fiction (2nd nomination)|13 April 2024}}
{{talkheaderTalk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{WikiProject Robotics}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Robotics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}<br />{{atn}}
|maxarchivesize = 31K
|counter = 34
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90}}{{bots|deny=SineBot}}
{{to do}}
{{merged-from|Clanking replicator|date=19 August 2017}}
 
== printable metal motors as well as structural parts ==
== Rapid prototypers ==
 
It occured to me that a metal that shifted between liquid n crystal forms at near human body temperature mold could build reusable laminate mechanical parts at mild temperatures.
What is the rationale for removing the section on rapid prototypers? --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You just have some Ga liquid along with magnetic fibers, these make a kind of laminate felt at a magnetic field (the EM is kind of a combo of strand orienting with mold clamping) yet permits fluid flow or raster printing (possibly vector printing) absent an EM field
 
Ag or Au coated Co or supermagnet "filings" create the orientable strands when Amorphously blended with the Ga makes a squishy metal paste Oriented with an EM field they cease being squishy. This is then printed as a kind of 3d metal cardboard
:The removal was likely perpetrated by a banned editor. [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 
As a result of the amalgam blend the metal laminate is firm at temps below 120F above that at warm water temperature they turn back into squishy metal liquid felt
:Let's not start it up again, please be nice. [[User:JSimmonz|JSimmonz]] ([[User talk:JSimmonz|talk]]) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 
One of the points of metal is that it can have structural surface channels that with a thick 2 mm electroplating would give stronger parts than many plastics, it also conducts electricity permitting printable motors.
<small>Edits made by a certain indef-blocked editor have been removed, as blocked editors are not allowed to edit. If they wish to appeal their block, they must do so through the proper procedures.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)</small>
 
I read that there is a goal to make reprap produce all of its own parts, This is kind of a universal shapeable goop that makes structural as well as electrical parts. Very awesome of course would be to print induction coils so that the printed parts could also power up from EM possibly from another reprap creation
== Naturoid ==
 
== Proposal: merge Clanking replicator to here ==
If I recall correctly, the Naturoid concept has already been discussed with regard to this article, Self-replicating machine, and been rejected, both for appropriateness and relatedness, and also as being perhaps an example of unreasonable self-promotion. This issue should not require further discussion. I vote for removal of the mention of Naturoid in this article, even if it does occur within the See Also section. [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 
The proposal is to merge the article [[Clanking replicator]] into this article. The term "clanking replicator" is nothing but a cute moniker for what is described here, and I see no good reason to maintain two articles on the same subject. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
:I don't see any harm in having a link in "See Also". [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
:'''Support merge.''' I'm not seeing a substantial independent concept for the the Clanking term, and little of that article seems different than the concept here in the generic phrase. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 15:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support merge.''' *Agreement sounds* [[User:Christopher Overbeck|Christopher Overbeck]] ([[User talk:Christopher Overbeck|talk]]) 00:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support merge.''' But somebody has to be willing to do the work, right? [[User:jmcgnh|<b><span style="color:#248F7D">&nbsp;&#8212;jmcgnh</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#58D582">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#8F7D24">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 02:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
:'''Support merge.''' Seems like a good idea to me; they cover the same material. "Clanking replicator" is basically a quip on the part of Eric Drexler, no need to have a separate article. [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] ([[User talk:Geoffrey.landis|talk]]) 20:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
::Agreed and {{done}}; much of it was a long-standing content fork too. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 14:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 
== External links modified ==
::I recall a variety of complaints in the past, and that Naturoid has been therefore removed. Lets see how other editors feel about this latest edit. [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
::: A naturoid doesnt seem to necessarily have to do with replication, in fact almost none of the examples in the article have anything to do with self replication. I'd say remove it. [[User:Guyonthesubway|Guyonthesubway]] ([[User talk:Guyonthesubway|talk]]) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::: As the author of the 'theory of naturoids' (before named the 'theory of the artificial') I do not agree: a self-replicating machine is a naturoid because all the machines that try to reproduce something natural (like a biological system, which is self-replicating) are naturoids. The special case of self-replicating systems, already discussed since von Neumann, takes as its 'essential performance' right the self-replication. Massimo Negrotti, University of Urbino. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/151.51.33.68|151.51.33.68]] ([[User talk:151.51.33.68|talk]]) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
I have just modified one external link on [[Self-replicating machine]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817729240|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112200308/http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/ to http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensab/replicator/
 
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::Actually, I can see what it has to do with this article. A self-replicating machine would, in a sense, be a naturoid, in that it could reproduce by consuming materials found in the environment, either for energy, or for more materials to build more of itself. In this sense, it is a naturoid, and, given this relation, I see no need to remove it. Remember, majority is not consensus, general agreement between all is consensus.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== References ==
 
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The best and most recent example that I can think of would be the replicators from the television show Stargate: SG-1. They are self replicating devices that use ANY compatible alloy or technology to both upgrade themselves and replicate. I believe this to be the best example of not only highly sophisticated Von Neumann device but a perfect example of what could go wrong with any self-replicating technology which is not given an appropriate fail-safe. The fail-safe cannot just be a shutdown command as any technology with these properties must be able to learn as it encounters different situations. The fail-safe would have to both shut down the program and deconstruct the machine itself.
 
I have deleted the reference to a patent that was a "replicating workstation" (which is not a complete action replicator at all).
Post by, Iseriad
 
== Article not NPOV, should acknowlege skepticism ==
[[Special:Contributions/74.45.36.222|74.45.36.222]] ([[User talk:74.45.36.222|talk]]) 06:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 
The article briefly notes that no self replicating machine has yet been produced (buried in the middle of a paragraph) but lists only reports of advances and successes (supposed) with no room given to skeptics.
== Be Nice ==
 
I'm no expert but I am going to add a Skepticism section, though I hope someone more qualified will do so. (I'm a career software engineer with a Masters in Computer Science, but never worked in AI or robotics).
I can't even go on vacation, I come home and you guys are at it again! Stop vandalizing and stop the legal threars please. Be nice! [[User:JSimmonz|JSimmonz]] ([[User talk:JSimmonz|talk]]) 19:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 
:It's pretty obvious the IP is your sock, and I've reported you to its blocking admin. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 18:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge an internet search finds far more positive than negative articles. But there are some negative articles nowhere reflected in this article. Therefor it is NOT written with a Neutral Point of View.
::Why you say that? That not fair. [[User:JSimmonz|JSimmonz]] ([[User talk:JSimmonz|talk]]) 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 
This could be like the situation in artificial intelligence 10 years ago (in 2012), when self-driving cars where confidently predicted by now (2022) by Google, Uber, Toyota, Tesla etc., who actually spent billions of dollars on research, and put hundreds of vehicles on the road.
 
Now it is widely admitted that we are decades away from self-driving cars if they ever happen. (References: just Google "self driving cars". You don't even have to Google "self driving cars fail").
 
For example, about the cell-clump replication by Josh Bongard and Harvard University’s Wyss Institute, '''Ars Technica''' says
 
:'''Interesting research, but no, we don’t have living, reproducing robots''' https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/mobile-clusters-of-cells-can-help-assemble-a-mini-version-of-themselves/
 
:Scientists on Monday announced that they'd optimized a way of getting mobile clusters of cells to organize other cells into smaller clusters that, under the right conditions, could be mobile themselves. The researchers call this process "kinematic self-replication," although that's not entirely right—the copies need help from humans to start moving on their own, are smaller than the originals, and the copying process grinds to a halt after just a couple of cycles.
 
:So, of course, CNN headlined [https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/americas/xenobots-self-replicating-robots-scn/index.html its coverage] "World's first living robots can now reproduce."
:This is a case when something genuinely interesting is going on, but both the scientists and some of the coverage of the developments are promoting it as far more than it actually is. So, let's take a look at what has really been done.
 
This shows not only that this project accomplished much less than it claimed, but the media accepted the claims and exaggerated them.
 
I want to point out that a purely chemical inorganic salt crystal in salt solution grows. Each Na cnd CL atom attracts others and the crystal grows. Are they a massive array of self replicating machines? If your machine does no more than a salt crystal you haven't accomplished much, in my view. (But I don't have a secondary source for that).
 
Further, every living cell has the ability to reproduce itself. So any project that starts with living cells is not inventing self-replication, it is assuming it is available.
 
A Google search for "self replicating robot (hype | exaggeration)" will find some more articles.
 
 
[[User:Ttulinsky|Ttulinsky]] ([[User talk:Ttulinsky|talk]]) 22:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)