Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Interwiki

Please enter: pt:Máquina auto-replicadora into this article. Thank you Brunonar (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of F-Units.

While I disagree with the deletion of F-Units from the article, I can well understand why this is being done; I concur with the effort to minimise vandalism committed by others. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with it. The original section was created as a means of compromise ... however, I don't see how that ever happened, given that the section met no policy or guideline. CMC is banned, and wikipedia is not his soapbox, or his free ad space. I see no reason the section should be re-added, and I saw no reason why it should ever remain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Although I suspect there will be the occasional sock-burst over it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section solely because it has gone unreferenced for far too long. At this point there is zero prospect of ever getting an acceptable reference for this information. There are only four things we know for sure about F-units:

1. There is a patent about them. However, it is a well established guideline that Wikipedia cannot accept a patent as a proof of anything that the patent says...all it proves is that the patent exists and that the author said whatever he said. The patent (by itself) isn't enough to prove that F-units are even notable. We certainly don't have Wikipedia articles (or even sections) about every patented gizmo on the planet. What makes this one any different?
2. There is about a paragraph about F-units in a book that rounds up every single reference/mention/anything about self-replication, including real technical advances as well as fictional and fraudulent claims of self-replication. Collins says that that section of the book on F-units is incorrect and he's even threatened to sue the authors because of it. So this is clearly not a useful reference for F-units - by either Wikipedia OR Collins' standards.
3. Collins has created a web site - which is very much WP:OR and therefore totally inadmissible as a Wikipedia reference. It doesn't really tell you anything substantive or show pictures or video of these things actually self-replicating so it's no kind of proof that these things really exist and/or work as claimed.
4. We know that Collins is a persistent Wikipedia vandal and sock-puppeteer and has a permanent ban from this site for breaking everything from WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:3RR...and much more besides. Crucially: That shouldn't affect what we choose to write (or not write) about F-units in the slightest - either way.

None of those things justify the existence of this section in our article. Collins could prove his claims very simply with a media demonstration of an F-unit replicating itself. If that happened, it would be an earth-shattering event. We'd have plenty to write about because there would be plenty of acceptable 3rd party references. The fact he has failed to do so is a strong indication that this is all 'vaporware'.

TIMING: I really wish we'd removed this section sooner (a year or more ago) so there would not be the appearance of it being removed as a revenge act against a persistent vandal (which I assure you, it is not). But on the other hand, removal of that section is long overdue. Should we allow the persistent vandalism of the article and this talk page to cause us to retain this section when Wikipedia guidelines say we should remove it? When would be a good time to delete it? If we wait until the vandalism stops before remove it - then Collins' persistent appalling and unprofessional ill behavior can only be encouraged. We cannot allow the actions of a banned user to interfere with the proper creation of Wikipedia articles - period.

So I maintain that my edit is a valid and long-overdue one.

If anyone has an acceptable reference for the facts stated in the section I removed - then I'll be first in line to reinstate this section.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding how the F-Units section was ever included, it is likely a result of my early efforts to bring consensus. It now appears to have done little more than embolden vandalism. I don't see the removal as an effort of revenge. Rather, it is a matter of having a stable, clear, well written, and complete article that does not need constant protection, and is consistent with WP guidelines. It is true that over time, I have come to understand much better the goals and procedures of Wikipedia, and other editors can probably see some change in the nature and quality of my edits. If better (usable) references become known to me, I'll bring the references to the attention of other editors, by means of a message on the talk page. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

...And I don't blame you for adding it. I might well have done the same thing under the same circumstances. In this kind of article, it's sometimes necessary to say something that's unreferenced and hope that someone is able to come along later and add a reference. However, we're not supposed to do that for 'controversial' facts - and even if uncontroversial, such edits should be removed if no references show up after a reasonable amount of time. The "non-controversial" standard is kinda key here. Aside from one man's claims - we actually have zero information...and now it's one man who we know will stop at nothing to keep this section written the way HE wants it. That's pretty much as controversial as it gets. SteveBaker (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly agreed, no question of it. Thanks for all your help, and the help of Daedelus, and that from Guyonthesubway. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Biffta, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggesting that we add Short Circuit to the Fiction section. The 1986 Science Fiction epic where in a scene close to the end the main star; Number five constructs an exact replica of himself from spare parts to aid his escape from the chasing (bad guys) NovaRobotics!

Biffta (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the bit from Short Circuit (movie) is a fictional example of self-replication. But I'm concerned that the fiction section is in danger of becoming bloated. There comes a point with sections like this where there are enough examples that we don't want to list them all. IMHO, if we aren't going to comprehensively list them all (and that could become a LONG list) then we should restrict ourselves to a small number of the best examples - and I don't think the example in Short Circuit is a particularly good one because the duplicate Johnny-Five is not a sentient robot like the 'real' one - and it's not clear that it has any actual software in it at all. It behaves just like all of it's motors were hard-wired to full-speed-forwards. Also, Johnny-Five makes his duplicate from a truckload of ready-built spare parts - which is really cheating. I'm reminded of the fact that the UniMate robot factory uses UniMate robots to assemble UniMate robots. We don't generally treat that as an example of self-replication because the parts being assembled are such "high level" components.

We have had this kind of 'bloat' problem with fiction sections of articles of many kinds - and some WikiProjects have developed rules about this. The WikiProject:Automobiles group came up with a standard that says (essentially) that for a mention like this to be included, it must be shown that the fictional work had an effect on the real thing. So, for example, many people who work for NASA say they did so because they became fascinated with Star Trek as kids...so that's a valid reason for including Star Trek in the fiction section of (let's say) Spaceflight. But where there is no such backwards-influence - there is no reason to include the fictional example into the real example's article.

Since the list we currently have is rather long already - I wonder if it's time to apply some kind of similar criterion.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I have cancelled this semi-protected edit request, as clearly, it would need discussion towards consensus (not a quick "change THIS to THAT").

I suggest that someone considers creating a separate article on Self-replicating machines in fiction, and uses Summary style. Best,  Chzz  ►  19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter

In order to make this page editable by all again, like it once was before banned user Fraberj (talk · contribs) showed up, I propose the addition of an edit filter to stop CMC. The rules of the filter would of course be kept private, but it would prevent him from editing this article, while allowing others to edit it so that semi-protection isn't needed. Thoughts?

As an aside, I'm already in talks with an edit filter manager about this. It would cost nothing concerning preformance.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am very interested and supportive of such effort. Let me know what I can do to help. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure.. go for it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how edit filters work - but if it looks promising, I'm all for it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It has now been activated.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The new filter has been modified to account for his recent petty vandalism. Please email me for the filter number, and I'll give you the link to access the log.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

{{admin help}}

This talk page's article now has a filter so that it cannot be modified by a banned user. Can the protection please be removed so that editing by all others can resume?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Stephen 05:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected, 25 August

I've restored the semiprotection to defend against the IP-hopper who insists that we recognize the work of Charles Michael Collins. People seem to think this person is *not* Fraberj, so the anti-Fraberj measures will not work. I checked whether a rangeblock would be possible, but there's too much innocent IP activity in the range. Please comment if you have any other ideas we could try. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Our best option is vigilance. William R. Buckley (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs an option to filter edits for vandalism like ThunderBird screens emails for spam. Something that learns the style of posting and the general address ranges that are rollbacked and nukes the ones that score highly enough.

Alternatively, we need longer term, wide-range blocks that only affect one or a few articles. The probability of an innocent IP editing wanting to edit this particular article is small. If we're worried about the probability of some innocent IP not getting to edit what (s)he wants, we should be considering the product:

  (numberOfAddressesBlocked x numberOfArticlesBlocked x weeksForWhichBlocked)

Providing that product is on the order of a few million, such blocks wouldn't do much (if any) harm. Consider:

1. A normal single IP 1 year block hits 1 address x 3,000,000 articles x 52 weeks = ~150M.
2. Semi-protecting an article hits 3,000,000 users (well, roughly) x 1 article x 2 weeks = ~ 6M.

Neither are considered totally inappropriate responses to a single determined vandal. What we need is maybe 10,000 addresses x 1 article x 52 weeks = 0.5M...which ought to be much less disruptive.

But in the end, as William points out - we can merely rollback when there is trouble. We have collins outnumbered - and it takes a lot less time to hit the 'rollback' button than it takes him to type whatever crap he's typing. SteveBaker (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw this pop up on my watchlist and was astonished to discover a certain party is still tilting at windmills (it was more than two years ago I was last here). If you need another admin on this article, please drop me a note. One question for you: do you think it might be worth trying the new pending changes protection level on the article? If so, I'll be happy to oblige (and set your 'reviewer' permissions if you don't already have them). EyeSerene^talk 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I really was considering asking for it, and frankly, I would love to try it.. just make sure to add it on the talk page as well. It would also help if we could somehow disable sinebot from coming here; it's hard to revert when the bot is signing the posts of banned editors.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I already have "reviewer" privileges...so I suppose I could fulfill that role in a pinch. However, I strongly dislike the WP:PENDING system and in any case it's a dead-end endeavor because there isn't consensus to continue with it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since April when the last major banning session happened, there have been just 7 incidents from Fraberj/Collins. They were reverted within 0/0/3/5/1/0/40 minutes respectively. So the article has only appeared in a vandalized condition for 49 minutes over the 4 months for which the article was unprotected. This just isn't a big enough problem to warrant bringing out the big guns. I recommend WP:DENY. SteveBaker (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't exactly about bigger weapons, but being able to not have to worry about stalking this article's edits every day just to make sure the banned user isn't violating their ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood the general application of PC was still under discussion (though I admit I haven't been following developments closely). It's not suitable for high-traffic articles, but might be worth an experimental try here. However, if this is a solution in search of a problem as SteveBaker suggests then never mind :) Protecting talk pages is another thing entirely and only ever done in extreme cases. However, if you establish a consensus here then {{bots}} can be used to prevent sinebot operating on this page, which may help with reverting (the code would be {{bots|deny=SineBot}}). EyeSerene^talk 07:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I can happily live with turning off sinebot in order to make rollbacks easier. It's not like this is a heavily frequented page - and sinebot has never had to sign a legitimate post in the entire history of this article so it's not like it's a big deal. SteveBaker (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More F-Unit nonsense.

I noticed that the hi:स्वयमानुलिपिक मशीन version of this page consists of about 90% English text about F-Units. Those familiar with the history of this article will not be surprised that I deleted the entire section. If anyone here is fluent in that language - I would appreciate a posting to that talk page to explain why I did this. SteveBaker (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?

I was wondering whether a section criticizing the potential misuse or uncontrolled use of this technology wouldn't be appropriate? At least for the sake of being fair and balanced. Praemonitus (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment/questions on content

For those of you who are experts in this field, I simply want to ask: do you see any relevance in adding brief discussion on 3D printing (esp. selective laser sintering) and other desktop manufacturing innovations as fields that are advancing rapidly and could have relevance to self-replicating machines?Tchad49 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you mentioned this just now, because I was just thinking today about how a brief mention of RepRaps would be directly relevant to add to the paragraph in the lede that mentions machine tools (although, of course, this paragraph is here only to make clear that this article is about truly autonomous self-replication). Ima go add a brief RepRap mention right now. — ¾-10 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead section should be brief - and give just an overview, not get into details. We have a section about RepRap already. I think we should (if anything) shrink the lead section. SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The interesting thing about RepRap - which sharply distinguishes it from 3D printing systems in general - is that the designers are working hard to simplify the design and to make more of the structure printable with RepRap technology. It's as much about how the machine is constructed as it is about what it can do. It could just as easily have used subtractive technology (a 3D CNC milling machine, for example) as additive. I don't see any special place for 3D printing (aka 'additive construction') versus CNC milling ('subtractive construction') technologies when it comes to self-replication. It just happens to be that RepRap went that way. SteveBaker (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The other interesting thing about RepRap is availability as a kit, and relatively low cost. Most CNC machines are out of home hobbyist price range. But in fact, the largest CNC Machine tool maker in the US (Haas Automation) makes them using it's own product (i.e. machine tools), and they operate up to 2/3 of the time without human supervision. So they have a better claim to being "nearly self-replicating". Of course, they still use *some* human labor, and parts and materials not made in their own shop. That brings up something I feel is not covered enough in the article - closure ratio. That is the percentage or fraction that a system can replicate itself. A fully self-replicating system would have a closure ratio of 100%, but real systems will likely be less than that. Danielravennest (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this "closure ratio" term come up in reliable sources yet? It seems a useful explanatory concept - but I don't think we should introduce it into the article without there being some common usage of it in our source material. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

See the report "Advanced Automation for Space Missions", referenced in the article, section 5.3.6 [1], the term is commonly used in the sense that a 100% closed system can be self contained and not require outside inputs. Danielravennest (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There were self-replicating machines in the Krell underground power station in the film "Forbidden Planet" Morbius mentions that a machine had serviced itself or that replaced itself some time in the past.

Doubling time for a self replicator

An important characteristic of a self replicating machine is the doubling time. It should be mentioned in the article if someone can find it discussed in a reliable source. It is a feature of biological self replicators also. A carrot seed weighs about 1.43 E-3 grams according to Territorial SEED COMPANY, Spring 2015 catalog, page 26. A typical carrot weighs about 93.7 grams. That represents 16 doublings. A typical carrot matures in about 105.6 days which gives a doubling time of 6.6 days. If someone can find comparisons between hypothetical machine self-replicators and living things, that should go into the article too. It shows at least that the 6.6 day doubling time is not thermodynamically impossible.

Other living things replicate at different rates. Bacteria can sometimes reproduce every 10 minutes. If a bacterium with a volume of 2 E-18 meters cubed could keep up this rate for only 18 hours and 30 minutes, it would cover the Earth with its descendants in a layer ten meters deep. Because of difficulty in finding the necessary nutrients to keep up this growth rate the layer might be less deep. - Fartherred (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC) & 16:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For a clanking self-replicator, an example with a measurable doubling time might be Carnegie Steel. From Carnegie's first steel mill in 1873 until he sold his holdings in 1901 this organization experienced several doublings with a doubling time of about 3.3 years, or an annual interest rate of 23%. The organization can be considered to be self-organized from executives, hired technical experts, laborers, land and tools. People joined the organization because they had an inclination to join. The organization made trades of its products for industrial equipment with other organizations. People provided the data processing, control, and some of the work in the form of muscle power. Machines provided most of the process effort. This might be considered an early form of Borg collective for which resistance was futile. Andrew Carnegie was not the only person able to provide top executive control, he was just the best. The organization might have drawn in other executive talent and still grown quickly because the economic conditions of the time were right for such growth. - Fartherred (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A clanking self-replicator that strictly meets the definition of the phrase would not have humans included within it and would not be dependent upon people for data processing. However, people are now capable of producing a mostly self-replicating remotely controlled industrial base on the moon, and getting economic growth is more important than using pure concepts. Carnegie Steel Company is somewhat useful as a model of self-replicating economic growth. One merely needs to think of Carnegie Steel Company as having existed in an environment in which it could take in people, machine tools, land etc. in exchange for money, which it produced in abundance. Then it is a self-replicator. At least it grew. The requirement for splitting would not pertain to the mostly self-replicating base on the moon. The moon base would be a step along the path to completely self-replicating spacecraft that could colonize the minor planets of the solar system. Progress toward developing a self-replicator should be relevant to the article. - Fartherred (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)