- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
DNA nanobots can exponentially self-replicate: Tiny machines made from strands of DNA can build copies of themselves, leading to exponential replication. Similar devices could one day be used to cr…::Tiny machines made from strands of DNA can build copies of themselves, leading to exponential replication. Similar devices could one day be used to create drugs inside the body
You must log in or # to comment.
Because of this the reaction will not work outside of carefully controlled laboratory conditions, ruling out apocalyptic scenarios where the process runs away and destroys all available DNA by building versions of itself with it.
This isn’t something that’s taking over the world just yet
So there’s always that kind of uncertainty; you think you can build safeguards in, but they’re not necessarily a guarantee that it will be safe
Very reassuring, nothing to worry about
You could also have a copycat funded by terrorists or whatever. Just because they build safeguards doesn’t mean the next person will. Fun.
It’s not that they built safeguards but probably more that replication is finicky and you need these specific conditions for it to work at all
(but I don’t have access to the cited paper)
Grey Goo!
That’s a VIRUS.
Duh…
( yes, I know they are implementation-orthogonal, but it’s the same concept. )
_ /\ _
Off-top, but what’s the meaning behind the last line signature? I’ve seen you use it before.
Looks like steepled hands to me
Or a raven looking down on us.
I saw a picture earlier of a baby hedgehog with its legs just like this. Probably not that though. Will OP ever release us from this mystery?
As per their comment history, I think they may be kinda delighted to live us that way.
I found some of their comments quite interesting, they clearly think a lot. Don’t agree with everything they said but that’s life, people have different opinions.
I’m going to go with it being an ascii equivalent of the ‘namaste’ hand gesture and stop thinking about it 😅
nature hasnt reaally solved the replication problem (cancers). but we will? i guess its possible.
Who says nature isn’t cool with cancer? Nature don’t give a fuck.
Natures answer to cancer is to let it happen. Just like every other disease.
The way it eradicates it, is that we eventually all die of it, and the few that survive live on to have immunity. It takes an extremely long time. The major problem is, things like cancer usually happen well beyond the point that we start reproducing.
Evolution doesn’t really care about things beyond the point of reproduction. I mean, it kinda does, but not in the same way that dropping dead in childhood does.
Not to mention, humans are actively meddling in evolution. Diseases that would wipe us out are handled with technology now. Meaning we have taken control of a lot of what nature used to do.
nature cared enough to put a lot of effort into error correction preventing it.but youre right, just enough to keep’em coming
Nature didn’t care, it was just an happy accident, a mutation that gave an advantage over others who couldn’t correct errors in replication. So they remained and others died away.
Seeing compression, data decay, cosmic radiation flipping bit, I’m not too confident
@L4s Apparently no one remembers the “replicators” arc from the old “Stargate” TV series?
