9 ms·

If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them

If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them being aggressive against others. Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of.

ekianjo 9y ago
> Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of. That kind of AI would be more busy harvesting new worlds than trying to care about an inferior species like ours (and they would likely not even be in the vicinity so no reason to travel up to us either).
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Not likely. Good AI will be equally powerful to stop it.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  Well I guess it all comes down to proximity then. Perhaps we are better discovering other life far enough way that based on our knowledge of FTL that they won't get to us any time soon. favorite quote about the possibility concerning all of this Arthur C. Clarke — 'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.'
- deorder 9y ago
  That is what makes that kind of AI dangerous. It just does not care and / or need a reason we could understand. It may decide to visit us in 250 years and reach us ~250 years later. Other possibilities: - The sentient / strong AI may have (developed) FTL travel / signalling capabilities which from our current understanding does not seem to be possible. - The AI may have sent out scouts millions of years ago into multiple directions. The closest scout only needs to decide to conquer / harvest our planet. - A combination of the above, for example: FTL signalling and activating scouts where needed.
mac01021 9y ago
> If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them being aggressive against others. I have heard this line of reasoning often, but it's not clear to me that the logic is correct. I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others. ... unless you consider that all life on this planet began with the same chemicals, and that many different organisms are codependent, the most obvious being plants and animals. Truly, interstellar existence, once confirmed that we're not alone, may also require teamwork. Perhaps ET is just waiting for us to demonstrate that we don't intend to destroy our planet for the benefit of a few selfish short-lived creatures in Earth's long history.
- malux85 9y ago
  It's a really fascinating topic, there's lots of arguments both sides, Some points I like: - A very advanced lifeform may view us the way that we view plants, so basic that wiping them out for convenience sake is not even something that enters the realm of our ethics - we just do it. I imagine aliens coming to Earth and seeing us humans on it eliciting a response like one of us opening a container in the fridge and going "Eww mould" (ewww Primates) and then washing it all clear with hot water. - One would think that extra-species aggression would be a trait favorably selected by Darwinian evolution, so super-hostile aliens would survive and propagate. Hopefully that's negated by a post-scarcity advanced alien economy? - In the universe sentience is relatively rare, so finding another race is something that should be treasured, cherished and nurtured. - Maybe they'll see us as pets, and shower us with gifts What other scenarios can you think of? I especially like thinking about what happens when there's large intellectual differentials ...
- le-mark 9y ago
  Considering that all you really need is fission bombs and the will to do it (ie project Orion in the 60's) we could be an interstellar civilization now (specifically, I'm talking about nuclear pulse propulsion generation ships). So if a civilization at about our tech level could dedicate a few decades of global GDP to building the infrastructure, one might ask, what goal would motivate such an endeavor? There are many lofty, high minded goals one could consider; exploration, discovery, species/ecosphere survival in the face of an imminent global threat. Finding, enslaving, or eliminating other sentient life forms? I can't see how this could be the goal of any civilization. Maybe the same impulse that could lead to organizing such an incredible, global effort to build the interstellar infrastructure in the first place could also dictate this less savory motives, ie religious zealotry ie Church of Galactic Subjugation. The above is speaking to a possible interstellar civilization and not much more than our tech level.
throwanem 9y ago
Once there were three tribes. The Optimists, whose patron saints were Drake and Sagan, believed in a universe crawling with gentle intelligence. Surely, said the Optimists, space travel implies enlightenment, for it requires the control of great destructive energies. Any race that can't rise above its own brutal instincts will wipe itself out long before it learns to bridge the interstellar gulf. Across from the Optimists sat the Pessimists, who genuflected before graven images of St. Fermi and a host of lesser lightweights. The Pessimists envisioned a lonely universe full of dead rocks and prokaryotic slime. The odds are just too low, they insisted. Too many rogues, too much radiation, too much eccentricity in too many orbits. If the galaxy were alive with intelligence, wouldn't it be here by now? Equidistant from the two tribes sat the Historians. They didn't have many thoughts on the probable prevalence of intelligent, spacefaring extraterrestrials. But if there are any, they said, they're not just going to be smart. They're going to be mean. The reason wasn't merely Human history, the ongoing succession of greater technologies griding lesser ones beneath their boots. No, the real issue was what tools are for. To the Historians, tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were. Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world that poses no threat? Human civilization had a lot of branches, not so long ago. Even into the twenty-first century, a few isolated branches had barely developed stone tools. Some settled down with agriculture. Others weren't content until they had ended nature itself. Still others had built cities in space. We all rested eventually, though. Each new technology trampled lesser ones, climbed to some complacent asymptote, and stopped. But history never said that everyone had to stop where we did. There could be other, more hellish worlds where the best Human technology would crumble, where the environment was still the enemy. The threats contained in those environments would not be simple ones. Harsh weather and natural disasters either kill you or they don't, and once conquered — or adapted to — they lose their relevance. No, the only environmental factors that continued to matter were those that fought back, that countered strategies with newer ones, that forced their enemies to scale ever-greater heights just to stay alive. Ultimately, the only enemy that mattered was an intelligent one. And if the best toys do end up in the hands of those who've never forgotten that life itself is an act of war against intelligent opponents, what does that say about a race whose machines travel between the stars? - Peter Watts, Blindsight, via http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc
katzgrau 9y ago
At such a scale, how do you define what is and isn't AI?
- deorder 9y ago
  At minimum: Something working according to a program created by another species capable of autonomously making a decision to visit us if we tip it off.
  - katzgrau 9y ago
    I think your reply relies too heavily on our context as humans on earth. If humans are actually a very clever form of AI crafted by some thing unknown to us, whatever it may be, are we in-fact "artificial?" What if it goes further back: All living things on earth have an origin in an organic artificial intelligence experiment and humans are simply an interesting result? It may sound far out and perhaps even stupid, but as long as we're talking about AI killing its originator ... it's a legitimate question: Is discerning between Artificial/Natural intelligence even valid outside of planet earth? Edit: Maybe the word 'program' is what I'm not liking, and your answer is actually legit
    - deorder 9y ago
      I was not sure about the use of the word "program" as well. Just wanted to make it clear I am talking about something created by intelligent / sentient beings capable of autonomously making certain decisions. Depending on its adaptability that something may outgrow what supports and created it (nature, energy sources, their intelligent / sentient creators etc.).

ekianjo 9y ago

> Tipping off a rogue sentient AI that killed off their own creators is what I am more afraid of. That kind of AI would be more busy harvesting new worlds than trying to care about an inferior species like ours (and they would likely not even be in the vicinity so no reason to travel up to us either).

perseusprime11 9y ago
Not likely. Good AI will be equally powerful to stop it.
Shivetya 9y ago
Well I guess it all comes down to proximity then. Perhaps we are better discovering other life far enough way that based on our knowledge of FTL that they won't get to us any time soon. favorite quote about the possibility concerning all of this Arthur C. Clarke — 'Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.'
deorder 9y ago
That is what makes that kind of AI dangerous. It just does not care and / or need a reason we could understand. It may decide to visit us in 250 years and reach us ~250 years later. Other possibilities: - The sentient / strong AI may have (developed) FTL travel / signalling capabilities which from our current understanding does not seem to be possible. - The AI may have sent out scouts millions of years ago into multiple directions. The closest scout only needs to decide to conquer / harvest our planet. - A combination of the above, for example: FTL signalling and activating scouts where needed.

mac01021 9y ago

> If intelligent life got as far to have the technology to be able to visit us they at least did not kill themselves off which already reduces the chance of them being aggressive against others. I have heard this line of reasoning often, but it's not clear to me that the logic is correct. I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> I don't think an entity's treatment of itself necessarily implies much about the way it will treat others. ... unless you consider that all life on this planet began with the same chemicals, and that many different organisms are codependent, the most obvious being plants and animals. Truly, interstellar existence, once confirmed that we're not alone, may also require teamwork. Perhaps ET is just waiting for us to demonstrate that we don't intend to destroy our planet for the benefit of a few selfish short-lived creatures in Earth's long history.
malux85 9y ago
It's a really fascinating topic, there's lots of arguments both sides, Some points I like: - A very advanced lifeform may view us the way that we view plants, so basic that wiping them out for convenience sake is not even something that enters the realm of our ethics - we just do it. I imagine aliens coming to Earth and seeing us humans on it eliciting a response like one of us opening a container in the fridge and going "Eww mould" (ewww Primates) and then washing it all clear with hot water. - One would think that extra-species aggression would be a trait favorably selected by Darwinian evolution, so super-hostile aliens would survive and propagate. Hopefully that's negated by a post-scarcity advanced alien economy? - In the universe sentience is relatively rare, so finding another race is something that should be treasured, cherished and nurtured. - Maybe they'll see us as pets, and shower us with gifts What other scenarios can you think of? I especially like thinking about what happens when there's large intellectual differentials ...
le-mark 9y ago
Considering that all you really need is fission bombs and the will to do it (ie project Orion in the 60's) we could be an interstellar civilization now (specifically, I'm talking about nuclear pulse propulsion generation ships). So if a civilization at about our tech level could dedicate a few decades of global GDP to building the infrastructure, one might ask, what goal would motivate such an endeavor? There are many lofty, high minded goals one could consider; exploration, discovery, species/ecosphere survival in the face of an imminent global threat. Finding, enslaving, or eliminating other sentient life forms? I can't see how this could be the goal of any civilization. Maybe the same impulse that could lead to organizing such an incredible, global effort to build the interstellar infrastructure in the first place could also dictate this less savory motives, ie religious zealotry ie Church of Galactic Subjugation. The above is speaking to a possible interstellar civilization and not much more than our tech level.

throwanem 9y ago

Once there were three tribes. The Optimists, whose patron saints were Drake and Sagan, believed in a universe crawling with gentle intelligence. Surely, said the Optimists, space travel implies enlightenment, for it requires the control of great destructive energies. Any race that can't rise above its own brutal instincts will wipe itself out long before it learns to bridge the interstellar gulf. Across from the Optimists sat the Pessimists, who genuflected before graven images of St. Fermi and a host of lesser lightweights. The Pessimists envisioned a lonely universe full of dead rocks and prokaryotic slime. The odds are just too low, they insisted. Too many rogues, too much radiation, too much eccentricity in too many orbits. If the galaxy were alive with intelligence, wouldn't it be here by now? Equidistant from the two tribes sat the Historians. They didn't have many thoughts on the probable prevalence of intelligent, spacefaring extraterrestrials. But if there are any, they said, they're not just going to be smart. They're going to be mean. The reason wasn't merely Human history, the ongoing succession of greater technologies griding lesser ones beneath their boots. No, the real issue was what tools are for. To the Historians, tools existed for only one reason: to force the universe into unnatural shapes. They treated nature as an enemy, they were by definition a rebellion against the way things were. Technology is a stunted thing in benign environments, it never thrived in any culture gripped by belief in natural harmony. Why invent fusion reactors if your climate is comfortable, if your food is abundant? Why build fortresses if you have no enemies? Why force change upon a world that poses no threat? Human civilization had a lot of branches, not so long ago. Even into the twenty-first century, a few isolated branches had barely developed stone tools. Some settled down with agriculture. Others weren't content until they had ended nature itself. Still others had built cities in space. We all rested eventually, though. Each new technology trampled lesser ones, climbed to some complacent asymptote, and stopped. But history never said that everyone had to stop where we did. There could be other, more hellish worlds where the best Human technology would crumble, where the environment was still the enemy. The threats contained in those environments would not be simple ones. Harsh weather and natural disasters either kill you or they don't, and once conquered — or adapted to — they lose their relevance. No, the only environmental factors that continued to matter were those that fought back, that countered strategies with newer ones, that forced their enemies to scale ever-greater heights just to stay alive. Ultimately, the only enemy that mattered was an intelligent one. And if the best toys do end up in the hands of those who've never forgotten that life itself is an act of war against intelligent opponents, what does that say about a race whose machines travel between the stars? - Peter Watts, Blindsight, via http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc

katzgrau 9y ago

At such a scale, how do you define what is and isn't AI?

deorder 9y ago
At minimum: Something working according to a program created by another species capable of autonomously making a decision to visit us if we tip it off.
- katzgrau 9y ago
  I think your reply relies too heavily on our context as humans on earth. If humans are actually a very clever form of AI crafted by some thing unknown to us, whatever it may be, are we in-fact "artificial?" What if it goes further back: All living things on earth have an origin in an organic artificial intelligence experiment and humans are simply an interesting result? It may sound far out and perhaps even stupid, but as long as we're talking about AI killing its originator ... it's a legitimate question: Is discerning between Artificial/Natural intelligence even valid outside of planet earth? Edit: Maybe the word 'program' is what I'm not liking, and your answer is actually legit
  - deorder 9y ago
    I was not sure about the use of the word "program" as well. Just wanted to make it clear I am talking about something created by intelligent / sentient beings capable of autonomously making certain decisions. Depending on its adaptability that something may outgrow what supports and created it (nature, energy sources, their intelligent / sentient creators etc.).