Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. Introduction Although there is a broadening social interest in the development of a powerful and general nanotechnology, the public discourse to date has largely avoided a comprehensive examination of its social dimensions, focussing instead on what is and is not scientifically possible. In this regard, much attention has been paid to the feasibility of Richard Feynman's famous 1959 vision, i.e., whether is possible to manufacture complex molecules atom-by-atom. (1) Whether Feynman's hunch is correct--that it would be, in principle, possible for a physicist to synthesize any chemical substance that a chemist writes down--has been fiercely debated in the scientific literature and the popular press. most famous version of this debate, the recent point/counterpoint exchange between Richard Smalley and Eric Drexler, (2) illustrates a deep division within the nanotechnology community. Consider the following snippets: Smailey: The central problem see with the nanobot self-assembler then is primarily If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what can do. If is a non-water-based life-form, then there is a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us for centuries ... Please tell us about this new chemistry. (3) Drexler: [T]o visualize how a nanofactory system works, helps to consider a conventional factory system. technical questions you raise reach beyond chemistry to systems engineering. (4) Smalley: I see you have now walked out of the room where had led you to talk about real chemistry, and you are now back in your mechanical world. am sorry we have ended up like this. For a moment thought we were making progress. But, no, you don't get are still in a pretend world where atoms go where you want because your computer program directs them to go there. (5) Drexler: Some chemists with careers tied to the old paradigm (based on random molecular motion in liquids) seem confused and threatened by this different and more powerful approach. ... Members of the old guard instead have assured one another that MNT is 'an impossible, childish fantasy'--in short, that there is nothing to learn. Having failed to master the basic principles of MNT, they see its revolutionary promise and dangers as false, and try urgently to dismiss it. (6) Smalley: You and people around you have scared our children. don't expect you to stop, but hope others in the chemical community will join with me in turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams. (7) above compilation of soundbytes from the public exchanges between Smalley and Drexler over the past few years is not meant to provide full coverage, nor even a summary of their scientific positions. Quite to the contrary, these remarks were very purposefully selected to demonstrate that there are other things at play besides the testing of hypotheses--that this is not mere scientific discourse. While this debate has been extremely influential within scientific circles, is suggested that such discussion is not particularly useful in the broader policy arena. In our view, despite their good intentions, this is not the best way for prominent scientists to assist in the development of appropriate regulatory structures for nanotechnology. This type of rhetorical exchange is not the best enabler of sound policy and planning. Although the development of sound social policy about a given technology must certainly commence with considerations about what is presently foreseeable, in this brief article we suggest that is also important to contemplate possibilities that are not necessarily congruent with today's forecasts. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".