As for the question of whether nanobots can completely cure cancer, that's scifi. Actually identifying tumors and removing them is a hard classification problem followed by a careful surgery. Generally this is done using advanced imaging, radiologists who interpret the images, guiding surgeons or doctors to either do tumor resections, or select chemotherapy. Nanobots are just a tiny version of the tumor resection, with the added problem that nanobots don't exist, they don;t' have the computational power to discriminate invasive tumors (at least, the current generation of "robot pills don't).
So let's focus on what is tangible in the near future: additional use of machine learning based on large training sets collected across hundreds of studies. That is in fact very likely to counter the author's hypothesis.
If it is physically feasible, which it is given we have immune cells and they are just evolution-created versions of these nanobots, then it is just an engineering problem and we humans are pretty good at engineering things.
Things will keep moving forward; macro approaches such as your suggestions will work insofar as we can find the cells. In the end it will probably be a mixture of re-engineering our immune cells to better identify and protect against cancer, macro approaches such as the ones you mentioned, and more.
It is a hard problem, of course, otherwise we'd have it solved by now, but we've solved hard problems before. And with AI it will be easier and easier to do so.
We’re not yet at nanoscale manufacturing in one of the few domains with the scale and capital to fund its development: microprocessor manufacturing.
Re-defining biology as “nanobots” renders the latter word useless.
Paper planes and fighter jets run can be modelled by the same physics. That doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. “Nanobots” implies greater degrees of freedom and function than purely biological techniques can manage. (For example, by incorporating digital circuitry and novel materials into the mix.)
As I said, they can include more types of atoms, but that adds little as life already makes use of a wide variety. It’s basic capacity that’s the issue not micro optimizations. Further, depend on a non organic atom and you can’t self replicate without being fed it.
At the smallest scale you can’t for example take a picture, you need to detect stuff by touch and respond before bouncing off while traveling at 50+MPH. Make a vast structure like a cell and movement and energy become major issues.
“Digital” means a logic model. Not a physical technology. Atomic-scale digital circuitry—completely foreign to life as we know it—is certainly plausible.
Your claim is that anything that can be done at the nanoscale can be done by “editing DNA to make a [protein].” I’m saying the latter is a subset of the former. Given all we have, at this point, is theory, it’s a reasonable point on which to disagree.
That’s not to say proteins are as efficient as possible. Just that they are fairly close to the limit of what’s possible at 1 to 100nm. Now start talking micrometers‘s and I can see some things changing.
Science Fiction vastly overstated what physical things at this scales can do. I can describe anti gravity fairly easily, that does not let people build something.
Nanobots are not necessarily just tiny tumor resectors, they could be implemented in dozens of possible ways with future technology (using some form of machine learning).
The same thing that currently prevents nanobots (your immune cells) for eradicating the problem of cancer. So, why don't we figure that out?
Everybody in tech not in biology needs to realize that we HAVE nanobots--they're called cells or bacteria or viruses (also called minimum viable product). And, most of the time, those nanobots do a good job. However, sometimes they have bugs that get exploited and we need to be able to help out when that happens.
The author is realistic. What I see among young people today is technology worship. It's like technology has a mystical power over you guys and you think that it will solve every problem known to man. Technology has limits just as physics has limits, but you guys bend all problems toward the narrative of being solve-able by Data science, machine learning or nano-machines.
I hate to break it to you. Not only will many problems remain unsolved. The future will proceed in an unpredictable direction.
>Technology is just applied and abstracted physics.
Like thats it. Technology is so simple. It's just physics. I'm arguing with your attitude and your technology worship. AS if nanotechnology is right around the corner and will cure cancer 100%. Cancer is not a trivial problem and likely a problem that will not be solved within our lifetimes.
All the article is saying is that data science, machine learning and all these buzz words popping out of silicon valley aren't the answer to cancer. But we have people like you heralding machine learning and nano-machines as the answer to problems such as world peace. Open your eyes.