this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
87 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59559 readers
3618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] uservoid1@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You could also have a copycat funded by terrorists or whatever. Just because they build safeguards doesn't mean the next person will. Fun.

[–] ThoGot@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

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)

[–] Jakdracula@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago
[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a VIRUS.

Duh...

( yes, I know they are implementation-orthogonal, but it's the same concept. )

_ /\ _

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Off-top, but what's the meaning behind the last line signature? I've seen you use it before.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Looks like steepled hands to me

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Or a raven looking down on us.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As per their comment history, I think they may be kinda delighted to live us that way.

[–] Transcendant@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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 😅

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

nature hasnt reaally solved the replication problem (cancers). but we will? i guess its possible.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 11 months ago

Who says nature isn't cool with cancer? Nature don't give a fuck.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

nature cared enough to put a lot of effort into error correction preventing it.but youre right, just enough to keep'em coming

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Melt@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Seeing compression, data decay, cosmic radiation flipping bit, I'm not too confident

[–] Lunatech@infosec.exchange 4 points 11 months ago

@L4s Apparently no one remembers the "replicators" arc from the old "Stargate" TV series?