Jump to content

Talk:Gray goo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.121.1.13 (talk) at 23:23, 6 September 2020 (→How is this considered in any way feasible by anyone?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Some other colour of goo ?? Black's taken, so's green

What about Zombie Goo? This variant shows up in fiction a lot, and some zombie stuff is arguably sort of science fiction, absurd as it may be. I don't know of a goo colour name but the concept is pretty analogous and highly prevalent in Speghetti Zombie flicks, including Return of the Living Dead and Resident Evil (both where military development bred dead guys who took over the world)

Ahh, just a thought. Seems to fit in there somehow.

mathematical error

"The acceleration of gray goo is most likely to be geometric as most replicators will quickly exhaust available raw materials. Although the growth is not truly exponential, it is worth noting that geometric growth is fast enough to warrant concern."

This is plain wrong, since geometric growth is the same as exponential growth.

This page has been vandalized (not sure how to notify of this).

Macroscopic Grey goo?

The conventional definition of grey goo being microscopic artificial self-replicating consumers, is there an equivalent term for a macroscopic variety? The specific example that makes me ask is the Slylandro probe from Star Control 2, which, due to a programming error, seek materials for replication above all else, even if those materials come from a starship holding alien life. The game postulates that, within just a few years, millions of these probes will inhabit the galaxy, with the number growing exponentially. They seem to fit all of the criteria for grey goo (artificial, self-replicating, consuming all, able to snuff out life) save one (being microscopic). Could grey goo even include such constructs that are macroscopic? --74.192.54.152 (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-replicating machine is the more general term, but I don't think it would be considered grey goo unless it were nanotechnological. All the sources in this article seem to be talking specifically about uncontrolled proliferation of nanorobots. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computing. adding the character "Agent Smith" from the Matrix.

After reading the computing section of this article, it seems that Agent Smtih fits the profile of a "Grey Goo", since he 1) continues to copy himself, and 2) uses this to take over, and control the matrix, and 3) threatens to crash the matrix system, thus affecting the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an advert for a computer game in this page?

Fine if a game exists, but we don't need to know which platforms it's available for and the difference prices for each. Blatant advert and undesirable.

Ganpati23 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grey? Gray?

Which is it? Both spellings are used throughout the article, although the US "gray" is most prevalent. --Serpinium (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section on credibility of the concept?

Since the person, an advanced professional in the field, who coined the term is on record (a record referenced by this very wiki page) as wishing he never coined it, and since that this very wiki page also references documents referring to the "myth" of grey goo, and others celebrating the "burial" of the term itself - can we have a section which more seriously addresses this? Instead of quite a long article treating the concept seriously? A layman researching the term can easily read this page and go away with the idea that "grey goo" is a much more valid concept than it really is - the reverse of what Wikipedia is supposed to do. "Grey Goo" should be treated the same as other debunked, mythical ideas such as ancient astronauts or nuclear weapons causing runaway atmospheric reactions.178.15.151.163 (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@178.15.151.163:
"Grey Goo" should be treated the same as other debunked, mythical ideas such as [...]
The grey goo scenario is not debunked.
The article already says "In 2004 he stated, "I wish I had never used the term 'gray goo'" in the lede. But I agree that it might be a good idea to add his rationale for saying so somewhere in the article. You could add that info. --Fixuture (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More pop culture references

Maybe the Borg nanoprobes (Star Trek) and the Terraformers/Xenon (X Series) should be added? Although the latter are somewhat similar to Skynet Terminators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.254.141 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

greg bear & "blood music"

speculative fiction, rather than a scientific journal or paper, but GB's 1983 award-winning story (short, then novel) nails a lot of the same fears & anticipations somewhat earlier; he deserves a mention here, higher-placed than the popular culture section, for his prescience. duncanrmi (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Duncanrmi: Currently reading the novel - while the scenarios have similarities Blood Music is about bioscience/tech risks while grey goo is about nanotechnology risk. Not sure to what extent these are alike (note there could also be risk from a mixture of bio & nanotech). You may add some info on this using this reference: [1]. I do think that info on the two scenarios' similarity and difference should be featured then. --Fixuture (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The majority of editors believe the American English spelling of "gray" is most consistent with the subject's national ties (to American engineer K. Eric Drexler) and the article's cited sources. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 01:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grey goo → Gray goo – This article currently uses a rather arbitrary mix of "grey" and "gray". WP has no inherent preference for one spelling over the other, but per MOS:ARTCON we should at least be consistent within an article no matter which variety is chosen. The first spelling used in this article was "grey". However, many instances of the word are in quotes from Drexler, who (I assume, since he's American) used "gray". Standardizing on "gray" within the article would thus result in a higher degree of consistency. If consensus settles on "grey" for the title, we should instead change all instances of "gray" to "grey", except where quoting Drexler. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - "Gray goo" is both the historical spelling of the concept as originally coined, and thereafter quoted and used extensively, and represents the dominant spelling overall. The article should be harmonized to use "gray goo" throughout, but of course mentioning the other spelling prominently in the lead and wherever quoted as such. Once the move and changes are complete, I'd also add {{American English}} to the talk page to inform future editors to stick to a consistent style. (Added note: search engine hits and other counting methods from 2014 and onward are highly tainted by results from the Grey Goo (video game)) -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep the original spelling per MOS:RETAIN. ARTCON gives explicit exceptions for quotations. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timrollpickering: MOS:RETAIN doesn't seem to apply because neither "English variety's consistent usage has been established" in the article because as indicated by the nom, usage is mixed. RETAIN also is more an instruction to not make unilateral widescale changes without showing consensus for them. This topic seems to have WP:TIES to the American who coined the term, and since that historic spelling ("gray goo") still predominates, its appropriate for us to use this RM to form a consensus as to which usage to apply consistently. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Netoholic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As Drexler wrote it, so should the page be titled.
As to the wisdom of forcing American English, I note that it seems already to be in American English, vis. "color".
<rant>(As I am English, and live in England, and speak English, English is MINE! All derivative variations are NOT English)</rant>
Bizarrely, the first reference, to the CRN, with two Californians as the leaders, uses "grey". They then, even more strangely, they give a link named "The Grey Goo Problem" to a New York Times article titled "Gray-Goo Problem, The"".
The second reference, to Science Daily, is just as confused. Lauwr (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion completed 6 July 2019

There was a move discussion in progress on Talk:Grey Goo (video game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this considered in any way feasible by anyone?

I don't understand how this scenario is being treated even a little bit seriously by anyone. It clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics, and combines all the most implausible aspects of both The Blob and the philosopher's stone

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gray_goo&oldid=977101805"