Nanotech was supposed to have exploded by now. Yet I can't recall news in that space in recent times.
How far away are mass produced programmable nanobots?
We have "nanopore" filters and they're doing fun things in chemistry and medicine.
As for mechanisms, we have things like accelerometers and microphones and DLP image chips ... useful but complicated mechanisms have maintenance requirements and that becomes a problem when all we can do at that scale is "fire and hope" manufacture. Try to make lots of a thing, hope some of the things come out properly, dont worry about the ones that dont.
i dont think we'll have "nanobots" for a long, long time. Cultured microorganisms will be easier, we're not going to beat proteins by building tiny metal brakes and welders: metals aren't the same at that scale.
Circa 1990 some researchers at IBM pushed some atoms around on a surface to spell "IBM" and visualized it with a scanning probe microscope, which seems like a baby step towards (i). To accomplish (i) you need a tip that can pick up an atom and push it to a reaction site and make the reaction happen, much like an enzyme. If you had the tip you could put it on a probe and start building, but we don't. (I do wonder though how you sense the environment to know that the last reaction went right, where the source atom is, etc.)
So far as (ii) I think to biological systems for inspiration and it's something chemists are making gradual progress on
Also, depending on what scale you allow, the armies of microcontrollers now suffused into all sorts of machines are such things.
As might be the software bots for good and ill infecting some of our machines.
More generally, marketing folk and 'thought leaders' fling all sorts of (often unhinged) verbiage at the walls without asking engineers what is plausible, so no one should be astonished or disappointed when most doesn't stick.