Slashdot Mirror

Actually, I suspect she's counting on workable nanotech and cell repair machines. Of course, that assumes that the gestalt that is the human consciousness is (1) written to brain tissue, and (2) sufficiently distinctive that it can be recovered.

If, on the other hand, the human mind is the equivalent of a bootable runtime, the best that's recoverable is a human, but the memories and personality would be gone. And until the tech is available, it's a crapshoot. On the other hand, she was dead already. . .

Personally I think it will take us more like 50 years to get there, but molecular manufacturing (MM) is coming and there is probably no way to stop it.

See the CRN Overview for some idea of how huge this will be.

You better not read this, or your head might asplode: http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm

It seems very likely that within our lifetimes (and hopefully within the next 20 years), we will have invented what is (in effect) a miracle technology that will make the manufacture and distribution of the majority of all products incredibly cheap and easy.

In fact, *that* is more likely to bring about true AI than any of the stuff we're doing now, because it will become possible to make artificial "brains" with enormous amounts of computing power and complexity well in excess of the human brain. Which we are not likely to accomplish without MNT, or something similarly advanced.

http://crnano.org/timeline.htm

"Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place. Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies. Assuming all this theory works--and no one has established a problem with it yet--exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable. It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025. When it arrives, it will come quickly. MM can be built into a self-contained, personal factory (PN) that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale. The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year. The potential benefits of such a technology are immense. Unfortunately, the risks are also immense."

What about molecular manufacturing (aka MNT)?

If we're lucky, there may be bigger changes coming in the next 20 years than in the previous thousand years combined.

I strongly encourage anyone interested in this topic to read up on the work done by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. I am surprised to find no links to this website previously posted. The CRNano group has been thinking about precisely this sort of issue, and even has articles about the disparity between public and scientific understanding of the topic. CRNano is primarily, but not exclusively, focussed on Molecular Manufacturing (Wikipedia Definition of MM).

The stated purpose of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (from their web site) is:

The mission of CRN is to: 1) raise awareness of the benefits, the dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use of advanced nanotechnology; 2) expedite a thorough examination of the environmental, humanitarian, economic, military, political, social, medical, and ethical implications of molecular manufacturing; and 3) assist in the creation and implementation of wise, comprehensive, and balanced plans for responsible worldwide use of this transformative technology.

Because nanotechnology (particularly MM) is a new and cross-disciplinary science even most SCIENTISTS have a poor understanding of the associated risks, benefits, and issues. Few scientists have the required background in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering to properly appreciate the current state and likely future implications of advanced nanotechnology. I suggest that many of the scientists polled on this topic (see the article) are probably not much better informed on this topic than the general public. I hope awareness of nanotechnology and the many practical and ethical issues surrounding it increases, both among scientists and amoung the general public. This discussion is a good start.

A distinction can be made between protoscience and pseudoscience. Cryonics: http://www.alcor.org/AboutCryonics/index.html
Extropianism: http://www.transhumanism.org/resources/faq.html
MNT: http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm

Make up your own minds.

Agreed. If this is what nanotechnology has come to mean, then we need to abandon the word entirely, and move on to a new one. When I think of nanotechnology I think of molecular manufacturing, and Fullerene nanogears, you know, the sort of nanotechnology that actually moves around and does stuff.

This stuff will come along soon and save them. So don't worry, just keep consuming.

"Silicon Valley" will only be useful for another 10-15 years or so.

After that it will be a whole different ball game, and only the players who spent that 10-15 years building up expertise will initially be relevant. (Of course within 10 or so years after that, everyone will have the expertise, and there will probably be a Silicon-Valley-like hotbed of it somewhere...)

It may surprise you to realize that different organizations in the world are actually following different systems of ethics/principles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other:

Guardian Principles: Provide Security (i.e. negative-sum and zero-sum problems, such as protecting land from neighbors)
"Guardian principles are appropriate for governments and police forces, organizations that defend laws and land. In such a group, betrayal can cause disaster; force is frequently necessary; tradition is valuable; and loyalty is more important than money"

Commercial Principles: Optimize Trade (i.e. positive-sum problems, such as bartering my surplus for your surplus)
"Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on."

Information Principles: Promote Abundance (i.e. unlimited-sum problems, "too cheap to meter")
"Think of a programmer working at 2:00 AM to add a feature to an Open Source program he didn't write. The programmer is not paid for this work; he does it because he wants the program to be more usable and more popular; he has been working for six hours without a break." "The Information system has arisen to facilitate the production and copying of freely shared information. This system of action is related to the so-called "hacker ethic" and to the older system of academic endeavor."

If you scroll down about a quarter of the way through that page, you find "Table 1: Comparison of Systems" which makes it abundantly clear that the goals and means of the 3 systems are incompatible. They go on to give examples of organizations that attempted to combine the different systems, or to apply principles of one system to the wrong kind of problems, invariably with bad results (example: the Soviet Union tried to apply Guardian principles to economic and information activities, and we can all see how well that worked out).

Actually, I will shamelessly plug CRN's main research direction here too---Molecular Nanotechnology/Molecular Manufacturing (MNT/MM) is something more Slashdotters should become informed about, so they can help spread the word. It's going to have a profound effect on our planet, and currently it looks like it will arrive within 10 to 20 years and we need to do lots of preparation before then or there are huge risks to our survival.

P.S. Sorry to post anonymous, Please mod this up.

It may surprise you to realize that different organizations in the world are actually following different systems of ethics/principles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other:

Guardian Principles: Provide Security (i.e. negative-sum and zero-sum problems, such as protecting land from neighbors)
"Guardian principles are appropriate for governments and police forces, organizations that defend laws and land. In such a group, betrayal can cause disaster; force is frequently necessary; tradition is valuable; and loyalty is more important than money"

Commercial Principles: Optimize Trade (i.e. positive-sum problems, such as bartering my surplus for your surplus)
"Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on."

Information Principles: Promote Abundance (i.e. unlimited-sum problems, "too cheap to meter")
"Think of a programmer working at 2:00 AM to add a feature to an Open Source program he didn't write. The programmer is not paid for this work; he does it because he wants the program to be more usable and more popular; he has been working for six hours without a break." "The Information system has arisen to facilitate the production and copying of freely shared information. This system of action is related to the so-called "hacker ethic" and to the older system of academic endeavor."

If you scroll down about a quarter of the way through that page, you find "Table 1: Comparison of Systems" which makes it abundantly clear that the goals and means of the 3 systems are incompatible. They go on to give examples of organizations that attempted to combine the different systems, or to apply principles of one system to the wrong kind of problems, invariably with bad results (example: the Soviet Union tried to apply Guardian principles to economic and information activities, and we can all see how well that worked out).

Actually, I will shamelessly plug CRN's main research direction here too---Molecular Nanotechnology/Molecular Manufacturing (MNT/MM) is something more Slashdotters should become informed about, so they can help spread the word. It's going to have a profound effect on our planet, and currently it looks like it will arrive within 10 to 20 years and we need to do lots of preparation before then or there are huge risks to our survival.

P.S. Sorry to post anonymous, Please mod this up.

It may surprise you to realize that different organizations in the world are actually following different systems of ethics/principles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other:

Guardian Principles: Provide Security (i.e. negative-sum and zero-sum problems, such as protecting land from neighbors)
"Guardian principles are appropriate for governments and police forces, organizations that defend laws and land. In such a group, betrayal can cause disaster; force is frequently necessary; tradition is valuable; and loyalty is more important than money"

Commercial Principles: Optimize Trade (i.e. positive-sum problems, such as bartering my surplus for your surplus)
"Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on."

Information Principles: Promote Abundance (i.e. unlimited-sum problems, "too cheap to meter")
"Think of a programmer working at 2:00 AM to add a feature to an Open Source program he didn't write. The programmer is not paid for this work; he does it because he wants the program to be more usable and more popular; he has been working for six hours without a break." "The Information system has arisen to facilitate the production and copying of freely shared information. This system of action is related to the so-called "hacker ethic" and to the older system of academic endeavor."

If you scroll down about a quarter of the way through that page, you find "Table 1: Comparison of Systems" which makes it abundantly clear that the goals and means of the 3 systems are incompatible. They go on to give examples of organizations that attempted to combine the different systems, or to apply principles of one system to the wrong kind of problems, invariably with bad results (example: the Soviet Union tried to apply Guardian principles to economic and information activities, and we can all see how well that worked out).

Actually, I will shamelessly plug CRN's main research direction here too---Molecular Nanotechnology/Molecular Manufacturing (MNT/MM) is something more Slashdotters should become informed about, so they can help spread the word. It's going to have a profound effect on our planet, and currently it looks like it will arrive within 10 to 20 years and we need to do lots of preparation before then or there are huge risks to our survival.

P.S. Sorry to post anonymous, Please mod this up.

It may surprise you to realize that different organizations in the world are actually following different systems of ethics/principles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other:

Guardian Principles: Provide Security (i.e. negative-sum and zero-sum problems, such as protecting land from neighbors)
"Guardian principles are appropriate for governments and police forces, organizations that defend laws and land. In such a group, betrayal can cause disaster; force is frequently necessary; tradition is valuable; and loyalty is more important than money"

Commercial Principles: Optimize Trade (i.e. positive-sum problems, such as bartering my surplus for your surplus)
"Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on."

Information Principles: Promote Abundance (i.e. unlimited-sum problems, "too cheap to meter")
"Think of a programmer working at 2:00 AM to add a feature to an Open Source program he didn't write. The programmer is not paid for this work; he does it because he wants the program to be more usable and more popular; he has been working for six hours without a break." "The Information system has arisen to facilitate the production and copying of freely shared information. This system of action is related to the so-called "hacker ethic" and to the older system of academic endeavor."

If you scroll down about a quarter of the way through that page, you find "Table 1: Comparison of Systems" which makes it abundantly clear that the goals and means of the 3 systems are incompatible. They go on to give examples of organizations that attempted to combine the different systems, or to apply principles of one system to the wrong kind of problems, invariably with bad results (example: the Soviet Union tried to apply Guardian principles to economic and information activities, and we can all see how well that worked out).

Actually, I will shamelessly plug CRN's main research direction here too---Molecular Nanotechnology/Molecular Manufacturing (MNT/MM) is something more Slashdotters should become informed about, so they can help spread the word. It's going to have a profound effect on our planet, and currently it looks like it will arrive within 10 to 20 years and we need to do lots of preparation before then or there are huge risks to our survival.

P.S. Sorry to post anonymous, Please mod this up.

It may surprise you to realize that different organizations in the world are actually following different systems of ethics/principles that are fundamentally incompatible with each other:

Guardian Principles: Provide Security (i.e. negative-sum and zero-sum problems, such as protecting land from neighbors)
"Guardian principles are appropriate for governments and police forces, organizations that defend laws and land. In such a group, betrayal can cause disaster; force is frequently necessary; tradition is valuable; and loyalty is more important than money"

Commercial Principles: Optimize Trade (i.e. positive-sum problems, such as bartering my surplus for your surplus)
"Commercial principles are appropriate for business and trade, which seek to increase value to all parties involved. Money is the lifeblood of commerce. Innovation and efficiency are more useful than tradition, and the use of force is severely frowned on."

Information Principles: Promote Abundance (i.e. unlimited-sum problems, "too cheap to meter")
"Think of a programmer working at 2:00 AM to add a feature to an Open Source program he didn't write. The programmer is not paid for this work; he does it because he wants the program to be more usable and more popular; he has been working for six hours without a break." "The Information system has arisen to facilitate the production and copying of freely shared information. This system of action is related to the so-called "hacker ethic" and to the older system of academic endeavor."

If you scroll down about a quarter of the way through that page, you find "Table 1: Comparison of Systems" which makes it abundantly clear that the goals and means of the 3 systems are incompatible. They go on to give examples of organizations that attempted to combine the different systems, or to apply principles of one system to the wrong kind of problems, invariably with bad results (example: the Soviet Union tried to apply Guardian principles to economic and information activities, and we can all see how well that worked out).

Actually, I will shamelessly plug CRN's main research direction here too---Molecular Nanotechnology/Molecular Manufacturing (MNT/MM) is something more Slashdotters should become informed about, so they can help spread the word. It's going to have a profound effect on our planet, and currently it looks like it will arrive within 10 to 20 years and we need to do lots of preparation before then or there are huge risks to our survival.

P.S. Sorry to post anonymous, Please mod this up.

The next big thing IS coming, and SOON, and it will be Molecular Nanotechnology.

If that's not the most disruptive technology the world has EVER seen, I don't know what is. Furthermore, it will open up all sorts of crazy possibilities when it arrives, that we can barely imagine today.

Now I've heard Nick speak and he's a very smart guy, on the ball, so I expect he was just quoted way out of context here, or something.

This article highlights one of my pet peeves: people with no technical background in physics, chemistry, or biology who somehow become talking heads on the subject of nanoscale science that garner world-wide attention. Seriously, look at their website. Explain to me what gives them professional credibility on this issue. This is as bad as Michael Crichton testifying before Congress about climate change last fall. Besides being loud and writing a novel, what actual qualifications does he have to be taken seriously?

There are plenty of actually qualified people worrying about things like the toxicology of nanomaterials, and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. Indeed, Rice University has an NSF-funded center on exactly this topic. Responsible scientific research is a good thing - assuming that unqualified people can appreciate the technical issues is not.

I first read http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm about 3 years ago.

If you haven't read it, you should read it too. Try to keep an open mind--try to imagine what the future might be like if their predictions come true!

I don't know how durable WorldChanging's servers are, but just in case, here's a coral cache of the article:

http://www.worldchanging.com.nyud.net:8090/archive s/004078.html

Additionally, here's the web site for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: http://www.crnano.org/

Other links:
* Wikipedia article
* Responsible Nanotechnology blog
* Wise-Nano: their collaborate website (i.e. wiki) for "studying the facts and implications of advanced nanotechnology"

(I tried to post this anonymously, but Slashdot gave me a "There was an unknown error in the submission" error. I guess I'll have to risk being modded down for karma-whoring.)

http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm

Everyone should check out the hedonistic imperative.

In a world where we could improve everyone's lives dramatically, isn't it an immoral choice (and an odious one) not to do so?

That world is coming, sooner than you think.

Already installed in my car (a 1994 model), and requiring no re-application or chemicals, no electricity, and once activated it stays activated until manually deactivated. Even in a deactivated state this amazing invention provides an invisible barrier to dangerous atmospheric gas -- such as carbondioxide and powerful solvents such as dihydrogenmonoxide often found in highly toxic acid rain.

This device is designed with macro technology (buzzword: MacroTech) -- which is not plagued by the extremely dangerous problems associated with nano techology.

What is this incredible device? It's called a drivers side window. Once "opened" 3" to 4", my windshield is not only cleared of any fog, but it says clear until the device is "closed" again!

This reminds me of some speculation on the rate of innovation in reaction to the attention Neil Gershenfeld's Fab Labs have been getting.

Fab Labs are USD$20,000 boxes of equipment that can be used, with an afternoon of training, to cook up many inventions, including basic electronics. This is the beginning of something that eventually might resemble a desktop nanofactory like this one proposed by Chris Phoenix of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

In short, the premise (open for debate, at present) is that personal fabricators ("PFs") in every home could do for patents what personal computers (PCs) in every home have done for copyright, when combined with the Internet. If the tools to innovate material things were distributed to non-commerical users, the amount of non-commercial innovation increases, whether we're talking about software or gizmos. For twenty years, incumbent comemrcial patents might dominate, but once they expire, openly-licensed patents could dominate through sheer numbers.

The popularity of open source licensing has largely solved the copyright problem; there are plentiful alternatives for those who insist on software freedom, and more are arriving daily. PFs could extend this to physical inventions, as well.

Huebner's choice of "major innovations" and patents as his measures of innovation just prove his bias is slanted toward the fact that innovation is decreasing because it's concentrating along with the wealth that results from it.

http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm

Check out CRNano's overview of current findings for some good information about molecular nanotechnology.

Its absolutely amazing in its potential, and CRN strongly believes it will arrive within the next 10 to 20 years. Which is why we need to be working on sensible national and global policies towards this stuff *now*.

That site contains enough detail to give you some idea of how powerful and transformative MNT will be. It also details some of the specific risks and what is known so far about how we can handle those risks (basically: simplistic, knee-jerk attempts to manage the risk will do more harm than good).

Why is it you think of this as a problem?

I think cheap/free medicines, consumer products, etc. would be a great boon to society.

Why do you think people who design consumer products are entitled to reap vast monetary rewards from their inventions?

Wouldn't the world be better if we could all live self-sustainably without needing to work 40, or even 5, hours a week at some soul-destroying paper-pushing desk job? What if everyone's basic needs (water, electricity, food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and material toys) could be met with essentially no cost? What use would we even have for the present economic system?

However, in the meantime, it still costs us money to produce and consume things. The people who want to make money should sell something consumers can't get for free. Consumers can get copies of DVD media and copies of mainstream music (mp3) for free. Therefore, a business model that depends on gouging those consumers for those things, is doomed to failure. Attempts to extend "property" values to things that are NOT property (whether it be speech, bits, or chromosomes) will either result in a seriously UN-free society, or will just be dismal failures.

We can use MNT to solve all these problems, we will almost certainly have it by then.

If we don't build one sooner with carbon nanotubes or other conventional means, we will definitely be able to build them once we have molecular nanotechnology (MNT), which there are compelling reasons to believe we will *almost certainly* have within 20 years.

MNT is going to change everything. All you geeks out there better start thinking about it, because once MNT is available, somebody's got to design the products we will manufacture with it--and that somebody is going to be today's generation of geeks. If humanity survives the transition, it will literally be us building the future. Think of the possibilities!

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

Everyone should read that overview thoroughly, to get an idea of just how huge and how important nanotechnology is going to be in the next 20 or 30 years. It will be like a whole new industrial revolution, except 100 times bigger and crammed into a space of a few months. CRN believes we will almost certainly have full MNT capability within the next 20 years. How are we going to handle that power? It will mean incredible changes to the global power structure, economic and political systems. It will mean rapid advances in medical science, in genetics and biology, a completely new way of manufacturing, cheap (practically free) clean water, clothing, electricity, computers, mosquito nets, cell phones, internet access, and medicines for the developing world, etc. It will mean amazing changes to our world--the stuff of science fiction writ large.

Suddenly we will have more power in our hands than we ever dreamed of. Near-instant manufacturing of anything we can think of to build. Home computers trillions of times more powerful than today's biggest supercomputers. The question will be what SHOULD we do, rather than what can we do.

If we survive the first decade, the whole planet might even become a sustainable utopian paradise where people work because they want to, not because they have to. Who knows? Read that overview and start thinking critically about molecular nanotechnology and what we can do with it!

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but not the specifics. The people behind the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology have no scientific credentials at all. They are not qualified to speak credibly on this issue, despite intensely active self-promotion.

The Foresight Institute is better, but they, too, are still way too into Drexlerian molecular manufacturing fantasy land to be down-to-earth.

The real folks to listen to on this subject are people like ICON, who are actually the ones developing standards for nanomaterials.

I can recommend two websites that have useful, factual information on safety and regulation issues for nanotech (molecular manufacturing): Foresight Institute click here and Center for Responsible Nanotechnology click here

... and their impact (among other things), see http://www.crnano.org/

Go to http://www.crnano.org/ for insight on molecular nanotechnology and nanotechnology policy.

Molecular assembly. Don't think of it as machining a cylinder, or jamming a sleeve into a hunk of iron. Think of it as being assembled like Lego, each raw molecule bonded to another by millions of nano-scale assemblers. The final product is built as one piece, from the appropriate molecules, with no wastage.

What is a transhuman? A transhuman is a human in transition. We are transhuman to the extent that we seek to become posthuman and take action to prepare for a posthuman future. This involves learning about and making use of new technologies that can increase our capacities and life expectancy, questioning common assumptions, and transforming ourselves ready for the future, rising above outmoded human beliefs and behaviors. [SNIP]

What is transhumanism? Transhumanism was given its first definition and characterization by Dr. Max More (in Extropy The Journal of Transhumanist Thought #6, 1990) "Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life [..]. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies[...]"

What is the Singularity? As defined by Vernor Vinge, 1986: The postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotech, neuroscience, AI, and perhaps uploading) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. Vinge also wrote: "The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence." Transhumanists vary considerably in their view of the exact nature and definition of a Singularity, and not all transhumanists accept it as a useful notion. For good information on the Singularity from two advocates of the idea, we suggest you visit Raymond Kurzweil's KurzweilAI.net site and The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the work of its fellow, Eliezer Yudkowsky.

This site reminds me of a similar doomsday scenario I've read about. Buy the book now!

The sad part is there is just enough truth to these things to make it seem fully plausable. If A and B are correct, C and D must be as well. Regardless of a bit of genuine concern for society or science, I think these people are just looking for some funding.

...My favorite sentence, found halfway down this page:

A large spacecraft design must account for fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, vibration and resonance on many time scales, avionics and other control, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, combustion dynamics, hydraulics, cryogenics, and biomedical issues. (Thanks to an anonymous poster on Slashdot for pointing this out.) (Emphasis mine.)

If they're using Slashdot as a source for information, how can we possibly take them seriously? :-D

First of all, I'd like to point out the article doesn't make any mention of the substantive amount of energy one of these molecular assemblers would undoubtedly require. If I understand the science even remotely, will it not take energy to break and form atomic bonds that are not naturally occuring? I understand chemical means can be used, but those chemicals need to be manufactured as well. Ignoring such a huge part of the problem doesn't give this article much credibility. Does it matter how far we push technology if we don't have the means to power it?

Aside from that, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the source of the article. The CRN FAQ doesn't inspire much confidence. The two directors have a single undergrad degree between them. I appreciate their enthusiasm in promoting the discussion of nanotechnology and its implications, but I think I'd take it a bit more seriously from a more credible source.

It was an interesting read, but sounded more like wishful thinking from a sci-fi fan than from someone who has a grasp of all the issues that factor into such a huge leap forward for technology.

I've written in my journal about their proclaimed timeline. Excert here:

"The Space Shuttle took less than ten years to design and build, from 1972 to 1981. The atomic bomb took only three years, from 1942 to 1945. Both of these programs involved more new science research and more development of new technologies and techniques than an assembler program would likely require. As analyzed above, they probably cost more too. The main question in estimating a timeline for fabricator development, then, is when it will be technically and politically feasible. There are probably five or more nations, and perhaps several large companies, that could finance a molecular fabricator effort starting in this decade. The technical feasibility depends on the enabling technologies. Even a single present-day technology, dip-pen nanolithography, may be able to fabricate an entire proto-fabricator with sufficient effort. At this point, we have not seen anything to make us believe that a five-year $10 billion fabricator project, starting today, would be infeasible, though we don't yet know enough to estimate its chance of success. Five years from now, we expect that a five-year project will be obviously feasible, and its cost may be well under $5 billion."

source

Journal

The article is originally from CRN, run by Chris Phoenix, of which Erik Drexler is on the board of directors.

It does not describe the structure of a molecular assembler, but is a reasonably detailed exploration of how a nano-factory, capable of building diamandoid structures and machinery, could be build once a molecular assembler is available.
It does describe a few directions in which people have had ideas for different approaches to creating molecular assemblers, though. And it's an interesting read if you want to see how people have seriously been thinking about ways to create MNT.