3 ms·

"As soon as a civilization invents radio, they’re within fifty years of computers, then, probably, only another fifty to a hundred years from inventing AI,” Sho

"As soon as a civilization invents radio, they’re within fifty years of computers, then, probably, only another fifty to a hundred years from inventing AI,” Shostak said. “At that point, soft, squishy brains become an outdated model.” While I am inclined to agree with the overall premise here, this sort of thinking strikes me as a bit naive. Technological progress is not teleological, just as evolution is not teleological. (Technological development is not as random as evolution, certainly, but neither is it teleological.) There is no "best" way to develop technology, and there is certainly no predetermined, given course that technological development must inherently follow. Progress is heavily influenced by local circumstances, context, goals, and constraints. Even in studying human history, you encounter certain civilizations (the Mayans, for example, or the Greeks) who had remarkably "advanced" technologies in some domains, and the complete absence of expected technologies in other domains. Instead, we should be talking about probabilities and correlations. The development of radio technology seems inherently linked to an understanding of the properties of electromagnetic radiation. We can probably assume that with some confidence. From there, what other technologies seem likely to be correlated to that knowledge, and with what degree of confidence? Etc.

ErikHuisman 12y ago
I'm pretty sure Shostak is talking about probabilities al the time as he is the director of the seti institute. The founder and friend of Seth came up with the drake equation. "The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy." We are the only known intelligent species in the universe. So we model these exceptions after ourselves. Just like we search for earth like planets in the goldylock zone. Carbon and (possibly) silicon live forms are the only ones we know can happen.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I'm also sure Shostak is thinking about probabilities. My point was that we shouldn't necessarily think about the probabilities along a presumed straight-line path. The logic Shostak is using here begins with a sort of reverse-engineering of how humanity made its progress, followed by an implicit presumption that other advanced civilizations will follow the same path, until such time as they advance beyond us (by way of AI). I don't believe we can confidently say that technology has to progress along the path we walked.
rndn 12y ago
> There is no "best" way to develop technology, and there is certainly no predetermined, given course that technological development must inherently follow. On the other hand, many inventions and discoveries have been made simultaneously, and presumably this happens even more often than reported since it’s difficult to prove your invention is original once it is already known.

ErikHuisman 12y ago

I'm pretty sure Shostak is talking about probabilities al the time as he is the director of the seti institute. The founder and friend of Seth came up with the drake equation. "The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy." We are the only known intelligent species in the universe. So we model these exceptions after ourselves. Just like we search for earth like planets in the goldylock zone. Carbon and (possibly) silicon live forms are the only ones we know can happen.

jonnathanson 12y ago
I'm also sure Shostak is thinking about probabilities. My point was that we shouldn't necessarily think about the probabilities along a presumed straight-line path. The logic Shostak is using here begins with a sort of reverse-engineering of how humanity made its progress, followed by an implicit presumption that other advanced civilizations will follow the same path, until such time as they advance beyond us (by way of AI). I don't believe we can confidently say that technology has to progress along the path we walked.

rndn 12y ago

> There is no "best" way to develop technology, and there is certainly no predetermined, given course that technological development must inherently follow. On the other hand, many inventions and discoveries have been made simultaneously, and presumably this happens even more often than reported since it’s difficult to prove your invention is original once it is already known.