SneerClub

992 readers

45 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

My deep dive into yudkowsky's "diamondoid bacteria" claims and drexler-style nanotech in general (titotal.substack.com)

submitted 1 year ago by titotal@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

NSFW 24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://titotal.substack.com/p/diamondoid-bacteria-nanobots-deadly

I wrote this article a month or two ago, thought people here might be interested. Drexler-style nanotech research appears to be effectively dead at the moment.

Oh, and Yudkowsky responded to the article with characteristic obliviousness:

I broadly endorse this reply and have mostly shifted to trying to talk about "covalently bonded" bacteria, since using the term "diamondoid" (tightly covalently bonded CHON) causes people to panic about the lack of currently known mechanosynthesis pathways for tetrahedral carbon lattices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“covalently bonded” bacteria

what an amazing theoretical possibility

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"My previous bullshit term didn't take off, time to try to launch a new one".

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 1 year ago

"Covalently bonded bacteria" sounds like something the writers of Star Trek: Voyager would have come up with because they heard that "covalent bond" was a science term but did not know what bacteria are actually made of.