5 ms·

Candidate measurements of a civilization's distance from the Great Filter: - energy yield of weapons - ratio of their AI's IQ to theirs - cost/mass to or

Candidate measurements of a civilization's distance from the Great Filter: - energy yield of weapons - ratio of their AI's IQ to theirs - cost/mass to orbit TODO: Calibrate after the Great Filter.

krisoft 4y ago
I kinda get the first two, but why the third? How does further improvements on cost/mass to orbit brings us closer to our doom in your opinion?
- wahern 4y ago
  I interpreted that to mean the opposite: an inability to leave your planet means you have little resilience to planetary-scale destructive events, and no resilience to planetary destruction. Alternatively, we're less likely to identify or recognize an intelligent civilization on a single planet, as opposed to one across multiple planets or systems.
  - elihu 4y ago
    I wonder if being multiplanetary actually makes a civilization more vulnerable rather than less? The thing about nuclear war on Earth is that it's basically unwinnable because of mutually assured destruction, and the threat of nuclear winter. Even if you win, you lose. On the other hand, it might be a lot more possible for a civilization on one planet to win a nuclear war against a civilization on another planet. Same with bioweapons: on Earth it would be stupid to try to use an "enhanced" ebola or COVID or bird flu as a weapon because you'd infect your own people as well as your adversary. But if you're separated by a great distance, that's less of a concern. In a way, the "dark forest" interpretation is too optimistic. The assumption is that one species will always try to destroy another independent alien species if they find one. But I wonder if it's even worse among members of the /same/ species but different cultures that are separated by a great distance.
- hirundo 4y ago
  Because additional grams in orbit are equivalent to additional joules of energy released as weaponry, e.g. dropping rocks. I fear that our ability to use space to destroy ourselves will come before we can use it to launch a diaspora.
  - ericd 4y ago
    Doesn’t rock dropping as a weapon seem a bit redundant when we already have the ability to make lots of 20+ megaton fusion bombs? I guess non-proliferation is harder.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > I fear that our ability to use space to destroy ourselves will come before we can use it to launch a diaspora. Will come? It is here. Have you not heard about intercontinental ballistic missiles? In that case I have this bad news for you. Multiple actors around the globe maintain the capability to fling warheads at others (through space). Not sure what you mean by “destroy ourselves”, but our capability of destruction is not constrained by cost/mass in orbit.
wahern 4y ago
Assuming the filter is ahead of us and not behind us.
- macintux 4y ago
  Much safer to assume it's ahead.
  - nameistaken 4y ago
    When I learned that our DNA has trouble replicating properly in microgravity I started to assume the filter was ahead of us.
posnet 4y ago
AIs or Super-intelligence wiping out their creators is not a great filter (at least in the context of the fermi paradox), unless you are making the claim that ALL said AI or SI will then shutdown and not attempt to use the rest of the galaxy/universe for resources.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  AIs or SIs may well have optimization functions that don't permit them past the "Destroy all humans" phase into the "Harvest resources of nearby starsystems to make more paperclips" phase - They may well reach a local maxima, be unable to proceed, and burn out long before then. I would assume that most AI with a sufficiently bad optimization function as to destroy their creators would fall into that hole.
  - simonh 4y ago
    SETI is on the wrong track. They need to build a galactic range paperclip detector.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  Maybe the IAs that destroyed civilizations were just misaligned and didn't desire to survive after the achievement of their goal? Maybe all around the universe, millions of IAs have just killed everyone and stop their execution with the return message: World peace achieved.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    For something to be an effective great filter, it has to happen 99.999999999...% of the time. Does that really feel true here?
  - qup 4y ago
    It's a lot easier for me to believe maybe there's an intelligence where everyone just agrees. Like maybe they have full knowledge and things just... Are.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
If you turn it around, all three could also be argued to be solutions to "filters". High yield weapons ensure MAD which prevents large scale wars between superpowers which would bleed civilization until it collapsed. AI can easily accelerate technological development in areas that solve major problems holding us back. Low cost to orbit is obviously beneficial but I'm assuming that's the opposite of what you were proposing i.e. costs stay high forever which is a filter in itself.

Candidate measurements of a civilization's distance from the Great Filter: - energy yield of weapons - ratio of their AI's IQ to theirs - cost/mass to orbit TODO: Calibrate after the Great Filter.

krisoft 4y ago

I kinda get the first two, but why the third? How does further improvements on cost/mass to orbit brings us closer to our doom in your opinion?

wahern 4y ago
I interpreted that to mean the opposite: an inability to leave your planet means you have little resilience to planetary-scale destructive events, and no resilience to planetary destruction. Alternatively, we're less likely to identify or recognize an intelligent civilization on a single planet, as opposed to one across multiple planets or systems.
- elihu 4y ago
  I wonder if being multiplanetary actually makes a civilization more vulnerable rather than less? The thing about nuclear war on Earth is that it's basically unwinnable because of mutually assured destruction, and the threat of nuclear winter. Even if you win, you lose. On the other hand, it might be a lot more possible for a civilization on one planet to win a nuclear war against a civilization on another planet. Same with bioweapons: on Earth it would be stupid to try to use an "enhanced" ebola or COVID or bird flu as a weapon because you'd infect your own people as well as your adversary. But if you're separated by a great distance, that's less of a concern. In a way, the "dark forest" interpretation is too optimistic. The assumption is that one species will always try to destroy another independent alien species if they find one. But I wonder if it's even worse among members of the /same/ species but different cultures that are separated by a great distance.
hirundo 4y ago
Because additional grams in orbit are equivalent to additional joules of energy released as weaponry, e.g. dropping rocks. I fear that our ability to use space to destroy ourselves will come before we can use it to launch a diaspora.
- ericd 4y ago
  Doesn’t rock dropping as a weapon seem a bit redundant when we already have the ability to make lots of 20+ megaton fusion bombs? I guess non-proliferation is harder.
- krisoft 4y ago
  > I fear that our ability to use space to destroy ourselves will come before we can use it to launch a diaspora. Will come? It is here. Have you not heard about intercontinental ballistic missiles? In that case I have this bad news for you. Multiple actors around the globe maintain the capability to fling warheads at others (through space). Not sure what you mean by “destroy ourselves”, but our capability of destruction is not constrained by cost/mass in orbit.

wahern 4y ago

Assuming the filter is ahead of us and not behind us.

macintux 4y ago
Much safer to assume it's ahead.
- nameistaken 4y ago
  When I learned that our DNA has trouble replicating properly in microgravity I started to assume the filter was ahead of us.

posnet 4y ago

AIs or Super-intelligence wiping out their creators is not a great filter (at least in the context of the fermi paradox), unless you are making the claim that ALL said AI or SI will then shutdown and not attempt to use the rest of the galaxy/universe for resources.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
AIs or SIs may well have optimization functions that don't permit them past the "Destroy all humans" phase into the "Harvest resources of nearby starsystems to make more paperclips" phase - They may well reach a local maxima, be unable to proceed, and burn out long before then. I would assume that most AI with a sufficiently bad optimization function as to destroy their creators would fall into that hole.
- simonh 4y ago
  SETI is on the wrong track. They need to build a galactic range paperclip detector.
it_citizen 4y ago
Maybe the IAs that destroyed civilizations were just misaligned and didn't desire to survive after the achievement of their goal? Maybe all around the universe, millions of IAs have just killed everyone and stop their execution with the return message: World peace achieved.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  For something to be an effective great filter, it has to happen 99.999999999...% of the time. Does that really feel true here?
- qup 4y ago
  It's a lot easier for me to believe maybe there's an intelligence where everyone just agrees. Like maybe they have full knowledge and things just... Are.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

If you turn it around, all three could also be argued to be solutions to "filters". High yield weapons ensure MAD which prevents large scale wars between superpowers which would bleed civilization until it collapsed. AI can easily accelerate technological development in areas that solve major problems holding us back. Low cost to orbit is obviously beneficial but I'm assuming that's the opposite of what you were proposing i.e. costs stay high forever which is a filter in itself.