4 ms·

> One possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that they are here but are just not making overt obvious contact Exactly. There's simply no reason to, except ma

> One possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that they are here but are just not making overt obvious contact Exactly. There's simply no reason to, except maybe sheer curiosity or some legal issues. What would we want from an uncontacted Amazonian tribe? But even if they wanted, from the political point of view, who would you even talk to? People of the planet Earth, bypassing their governments? Every government of every country? Plus, what about the possible social upheaval? They would be guilty. No matter how you spin it, it's more trouble than it's worth. It is, however, essential to keep a potential competitor under surveillance, especially when they are rapidly developing. Being spotted though, that I find improbable. There are numerous ways we could eliminate signs of contact with a society at the level of, say, X century, and that's just one thousand years gap. With a greater gap, it would probably be like competing with wild baboons over a Nobel prize.

gfodor 9y ago
I'd imagine it just would try to maximize utility -- remaining undetected in all scenarios may come with its own costs and risks. Alternatively, maximizing utility may require a certain minimal level of detection. It's hard to predict what cost function is being optimized. Given what is now common knowledge about AI game theory, it's super hard or impossible to actually ascribe any form of motives, ethics, intent, etc to the underlying system or intelligence that is controlling these objects if they are not natural and have no association with human culture or intelligence.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  > I'd imagine it just would try to maximize utility -- remaining undetected in all scenarios may come with its own costs and risks. That's true, and there could be "rogue actors" who care less about the detection. But - again, borrowing the X century analogy - there's a lot of tools that can be employed to eliminate the witnesses and such.

gfodor 9y ago

I'd imagine it just would try to maximize utility -- remaining undetected in all scenarios may come with its own costs and risks. Alternatively, maximizing utility may require a certain minimal level of detection. It's hard to predict what cost function is being optimized. Given what is now common knowledge about AI game theory, it's super hard or impossible to actually ascribe any form of motives, ethics, intent, etc to the underlying system or intelligence that is controlling these objects if they are not natural and have no association with human culture or intelligence.

vadimberman 9y ago
> I'd imagine it just would try to maximize utility -- remaining undetected in all scenarios may come with its own costs and risks. That's true, and there could be "rogue actors" who care less about the detection. But - again, borrowing the X century analogy - there's a lot of tools that can be employed to eliminate the witnesses and such.