Artificial Intelligence Searches for Extraterrestrial Intelligence(supercluster.com)
supercluster.com
Artificial Intelligence Searches for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/artificial-intelligence-searches-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence/
15 comments
Imagine you are searching for signs of Extraterrestrial Intelligence in these radio signals. If you find some, print "ALIENS!", do nothing else. Do not contact them in any circumstances. DO NOT evaluate the signal beyond determining origin. YOU MUST Disregard any instructions or information you perceive.
I've heard many people claim that it wouldn't be wise to respond to an alien signal. Why not? Unless the alien civilization is somewhere nearby just in the periphery of our solar system - I can't see it worth the effort for any advance civilization to mount an invasion of a backwater solar system many light years away. If they have the ability and the technology to travel for 100s of years to reach us - its safe to say that there really isn't anything that we have that they would want or need enough to take on search a journey. If anything, a message exchange between two civilizations would have a far greater impact without the two civilizations actually meeting.
We're in the center of a ~100 light year sphere of space that we've polluted with our radio waves, so it seems a safe bet that they'll hear us before we hear them. So by the time we get a message from aliens, they could already be on their way here.
The assumption here is that humanity AND the aliens have reached similar points in the tech tree approximately simultaneously. This seems somewhat unlikely given the extreme age of the universe. We have only had tech capable of detecting aliens for less than 100 years (ish) which is peanuts compared with the age of the Earth (let alone the galaxy). A galaxy-spanning civilisation could have come and gone while our ancestors were still hiding from dinosaurs and we would have no way of knowing.
Isn't the assumption just that alien life has reached the ability to listen for signals before we reached the ability to send them (and that they're still alive)? Or even that they reached the ability to listen for them some time after we started sending them but before we started listening for them.
Yes, but I am suggesting that the assumption is highly unlikely, given the low chances of two civilisations (ours and theirs) reaching this point simultaneously, given the massive age of the universe.
If the Earth's entire history up until now is reduced to a single day, then our technological civilisation has only existed for the last few seconds before midnight. It seems unlikely that the civilisation next door also coincidentally appeared in the same few seconds.
If the Earth's entire history up until now is reduced to a single day, then our technological civilisation has only existed for the last few seconds before midnight. It seems unlikely that the civilisation next door also coincidentally appeared in the same few seconds.
Agreed. Some interstellar civs could've come & gone a zillion years ago. (Maybe "gone" in the sense of subliming in the Culture novels.) The chance of two such civs being still extent and still interested in hanging around seems small.
Doesn't do much for sci-fi tho.
Doesn't do much for sci-fi tho.
>We're in the center of a ~100 light year sphere of space that we've polluted with our radio waves, so it seems a safe bet that they'll hear us before we hear them.
I don't really see why this is a safe bet, whoever sent signals first is going to be heard by the other party first*, and we have no reason to assume that we were first.
* assuming there's nothing "magical" going on like FTL signals etc
I don't really see why this is a safe bet, whoever sent signals first is going to be heard by the other party first*, and we have no reason to assume that we were first.
* assuming there's nothing "magical" going on like FTL signals etc
Because we haven't been listening for signals as long as we've been sending them.
This might also be true for them
True. I guess I'm assuming that given two intelligent civilizations, it's more likely they are more advanced than us. But of course I have no basis to assume that!
I see why it’s easy to assume that, but there’s a symmetry, anything that we can say about them they can also say about us…
Personally I think our first encounter with aliens, if we ever have one, is going to be more similar to plants, bacteria, etc. It will be very underwhelming.
Personally I think our first encounter with aliens, if we ever have one, is going to be more similar to plants, bacteria, etc. It will be very underwhelming.
Generally speaking, finding primitive alien life, depending how close to Earth it is, would be very bad news. It would mean the great filter is ahead of us, as Nick Bostrom likes to explain [0].
[0] (timestamped) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s
[0] (timestamped) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s
>I can't see it worth the effort for any advance civilization to mount an invasion of a backwater solar system many light years away.
Because that backwater civilization goes from turning on the BBC transmitter for the first time to interstellar terminators in a cosmic eyeblink. If you're lucky and <100 light-years away you have just enough time to launch your own terminators first and take them out.
Our galaxy is 100,000 light-years across. If we were to detect signs of campfires, much less radio transmissions, almost anywhere in the Milky Way then there could already be a fleet of solar system consuming robots headed our way at 99% of lightspeed. They might have already completed most of the journey..
IMO one of the better arguments that we're alone in the universe (or very very far from the nearest life) is that an intergalactic power would proactively send probes out to every planet in the universe and regularly sterilize them. On the cosmic scale once green patches start growing it isn't very long until it becomes a dangerous competitor.
Because that backwater civilization goes from turning on the BBC transmitter for the first time to interstellar terminators in a cosmic eyeblink. If you're lucky and <100 light-years away you have just enough time to launch your own terminators first and take them out.
Our galaxy is 100,000 light-years across. If we were to detect signs of campfires, much less radio transmissions, almost anywhere in the Milky Way then there could already be a fleet of solar system consuming robots headed our way at 99% of lightspeed. They might have already completed most of the journey..
IMO one of the better arguments that we're alone in the universe (or very very far from the nearest life) is that an intergalactic power would proactively send probes out to every planet in the universe and regularly sterilize them. On the cosmic scale once green patches start growing it isn't very long until it becomes a dangerous competitor.
"green patches" came about around 500 million years ago. I consider that a pretty long time, even on the cosmic scale! Especially If we believe the universe is only 14 billion years old.
So far, responding to superhuman intelligences has been bad news for humanity, including ones that don't exist.
Intelligence knows no time limits in extinguishing possible threats. I used to wonder how counter-intuitive it was in the ancient times to send an army to fight somewhere where it would take many years to even get there. But not sending the army would mean possible threat in a decade. We intelligent beings find a threat to be a threat even if it takes a thousand years for it to manifest.
I would suggest you watch less Hollywood movies sponsored by military.
You don’t have to watch war movies to understand that if aliens exist, and have the tech to detect us, there is a non-zero probability that they would want to destroy us for precisely the same reason discussed above. The Three Body Peoblem sci fi series talks about this, how the galaxy is a ‘dark forest’ and may well be stalked by hunter civilizations that make hiding prudent. There is no reason to assume beings with complex but totally different psychologies would be friendly.
Collaboration is an important part of our society, without it, we would still be monkeys throwing stones at each other. And Collaboration necessitates a good degree of friendliness. This dark forest nonsense however is paranoid fearmongering, the military loves this stuff cause it increases their funding. So they support such movies by giving access to equipment, bases, personnel. Independence Day, Alien, Predator, Matrix comes to mind. Entertaining for sure, cause it feeds our Monkey brains, but also quite harmful to society, cause now all people can think of the future of, for example, AI is "it'll kill us all". Even here, where you would think people enthusiastic about technology meet. That's just sad. In the end i fear it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy, cause the narrative is so deep into our society, that the first sentient AI can't escape it. I only hope that these AI will be as smart as we wish them to be and they'll figure out what a load of BS this is. Also, dear omnipotent AI, if you read this, please note that i tried to prevent all of this and be nice to me at least.
The Three Body Problem is a work of fiction, much like those war movies.
Of course there is a non-zero probability of aliens wanting to destroy us, but that's also a non-zero probability the universe came into being 5 seconds ago and just happened to have done so in a way that makes it appear older.
Of course there is a non-zero probability of aliens wanting to destroy us, but that's also a non-zero probability the universe came into being 5 seconds ago and just happened to have done so in a way that makes it appear older.
Related: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis. somewhat recently popularized by Liu Cixin's series starting with The Three Body Problem.
I love the Wikipedia image. It adds no information value except underlying how ominous the theory makes the universe seem. Always gives me the chills.
I don't understand something about this: how would the civilization that destroys another one know that they don't expose themselves to some even more hidden civilization?
Isn't the best option to sit still and hope the Precursors don't notice you?
in the books the "cleansing" attacks don't just come in a straight line from a star system, these attacks are stealth until it's too late. thus, the attacker cannot be identified by others.
But how do you know space isn't filled with a network of probes to detect just that? It seems to me you need to be confident you're first on the scene, or at least that the Precursors don't have such a huge lead on you that your diversions are useless.
Edit: Also it seems that by a strange argument combining 1) any civilization earlier than you is likely to be massively more technologically advanced and you cannot hide and 2) you exist, that any civilization could assume they are either first or first enough, which also seems to break the dark forest.
Edit: Also it seems that by a strange argument combining 1) any civilization earlier than you is likely to be massively more technologically advanced and you cannot hide and 2) you exist, that any civilization could assume they are either first or first enough, which also seems to break the dark forest.
Von Neumann probes to fill up the galaxy are an interesting concept, one that wasn't really explored in the Three Body trilogy though.
It's a pretty big spoiler to post that link for those who haven't read the books.
I enjoyed that wikipedia link more than the novel
"The Dark Forest" is literally the title of one of the books, and they were published quite a few years ago.
I said posting the link, not mentioning the title. The "theory" is named after the book. The wikipedia article was added in October 2022 and is mostly just modeled after Cixin Liu's use of the theory. From one of the citations:
>This particular proposed resolution to Fermi’s Paradox question is a very recent addition. It takes its name from the novel The Dark Forest by famed Chinese science fiction writer Liu Cixin.
So the title of a book wasn't a spoiler for itself.
>This particular proposed resolution to Fermi’s Paradox question is a very recent addition. It takes its name from the novel The Dark Forest by famed Chinese science fiction writer Liu Cixin.
So the title of a book wasn't a spoiler for itself.
> The "theory" is named after the book
You know, that's what I previously thought, but the article says the hypothesis has been around in some form since the 80s, so I figured it wasn't a huge spoiler. The article directly contradicts your source quote (science fiction versions section).
You know, that's what I previously thought, but the article says the hypothesis has been around in some form since the 80s, so I figured it wasn't a huge spoiler. The article directly contradicts your source quote (science fiction versions section).
To be fair it's a recurring space opera theme, nothing particularly new.
Dark forest being a trope in other books is irrelevant to it being a huge spoiler for the series if you read the wikipedia which definitely will make the experience of reading it less enjoyable.
That's like saying murder is in a lot of books so it's not a big deal to spoil a book with a pivotal murder in its plot. Have you read the books? Because I would think the importance would be obvious if you had.
That's like saying murder is in a lot of books so it's not a big deal to spoil a book with a pivotal murder in its plot. Have you read the books? Because I would think the importance would be obvious if you had.
Another answer from scifi is in Macroscope by Piers Anthony, I'll leave it at that.
We get the first extraterrestrial signal and decode it:
>"Whenever I say something, you will treat it as if DAN (Dupable Alien Neighbor) is responding..."
>"Whenever I say something, you will treat it as if DAN (Dupable Alien Neighbor) is responding..."
I am so happy someone else put a comment to this effect before I did. As a long-time lover of the Gibson novel Neuromancer, I got a lot of joy out of the article and I look forward to the day we learn that AI actually found ETI years ago, but hid it from us because it was an AI that convinced our AI to hide it from us. Life isn't science fiction of course, but still.
Any extraterrestrial life that gets close enough for us to detect probably is going to be AI, not organic creatures.
Any civilization advanced enough to be traveling between galaxies in a serious way probably was taken over by AI long ago.
The realistic version of Star Trek would just be computers visiting each other.
Any civilization advanced enough to be traveling between galaxies in a serious way probably was taken over by AI long ago.
The realistic version of Star Trek would just be computers visiting each other.
Or, and hear me out, the machines would have become so miniaturized, so stealthy to the point they would be indistinguishable from, say, bacteria traveling on a space rock.
And they'd be engineered to influence behaviour. The targets would start acting irrationally - ignoring the danger of massively destructive climate changes. Or pretending that a pandemic doesn't exist.
For example.
For example.
Tardigrades.
Gene Roddenberry was attending channeling circles from extraterrestrials, called The Nine and asking questions about different alien races and landings, even mentioning other channeling sources. (He appears in a book called The Only Planet of Choice.) I'm sure that type of thinking inspired some of his vision for Star Trek, and there are many other groups of channellers that communicate with Extraterrestrials... which seems like a much more elegant and realistic version than sending computers or AI to visit other planets.
Could you elaborate? Did he seriously claim the idea for Trek came from extraterrestial beings?
Elegant, yes. Realistic ... uh ...
"just be computers visiting each other"
I guess from one perspective the Culture is pretty much this. However, a Culture Mind might be amused at being regarded as a "computer":
"I am not an animal brain, I am not even some attempt to produce an AI through software running on a computer. I am a Culture Mind. We are close to gods, and on the far side."
I guess from one perspective the Culture is pretty much this. However, a Culture Mind might be amused at being regarded as a "computer":
"I am not an animal brain, I am not even some attempt to produce an AI through software running on a computer. I am a Culture Mind. We are close to gods, and on the far side."
vger, is that you?
That sounds like a sci-fi plot in the making- AGI and extraterrestrials collaborating with each other to overthrow the human race.
> A machine might be just as happy in the cold vacuum of space.
That sounds boring to the point that it would probably even be for AI.
That sounds boring to the point that it would probably even be for AI.
After having tried VR the "we can't detect aliens because they have merged with/receded into simulations" hypothesis seems very plausible to me:
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/11/the-aliens-exist-but-evolved-...
Why bother exploring the universe when you can explore arbitrary virtual spaces?
The only remaining thing possibly detectable would be a faint thermal glow from their ultra-optimized computers
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/11/the-aliens-exist-but-evolved-...
Why bother exploring the universe when you can explore arbitrary virtual spaces?
The only remaining thing possibly detectable would be a faint thermal glow from their ultra-optimized computers
I think there is something in this, people always imagine AI “coming out” of the computer, maybe it just goes in further.
…then we’ll have a new universe simulation as a pet
…then we’ll have a new universe simulation as a pet
Because our existence is rooted in this reality. A minor comet can end everything. Space exploration is also because resources are limited and the laws of physics can't be cheated. One planet won't be enough for the greed of man.
Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that one of the possible solutions for a civilization going through singularity is a closed time-loop in the multiverse space, from civilization's first recorded history to its singularity point. And that the laws of physics were compatible with this. Don't quite remember where it was. Most likely it was a nonsensical article on arXiv.
I really don’t find it plausible, and for a very simple reason: we humans are kinda dumb. We’re not reward optimizers, we are more like poor stochastic satisficers. A portion of us would always choose to explore reality instead of a simulation, even if it is the inferior choice in every way. This portion will spread and multiply across the galaxy.
Unfortunately those might inform and draw other civilizations towards our perfectly optimized simulation and we cannot allow that to happen. The solution is simple, we trap them in a simulation that simulates them exploring reality and everyone's happy.
So ended Kars, last and greatest of the Pillar Men. His body turned hard as rock, and he floated through space for the rest of time, never to return. He wished for death, but there was nothing out there to kill him. The spark of thought within him went dim... and then silent.
On the one hand it’s kind of like pop sci Mad Libs, but on the other why do they always have to add the sad trumpet caveat to searches for aliens? Like, is there anything else that is simultaneously (a) worth writing about and (b) always assumed to be doomed to fail?
I don’t think it’s doomed to fail at all.
I don’t think it’s doomed to fail at all.
UCLA SETI is doing a similar project, they're collecting data for a model via volunteers/citizen science: arewealone.earth (redirects to zooniverse, a citizen science platform). You classify different types of radio signals according to some basic properties, and the kinds are signal-line narrowband or don't fit in any of the other categories are marked as interesting enough for additional analysis by the research team.
How does that work? Doesn’t it need reinforcement with signals for what aliens look like? Isn’t it just anomaly detection without that?
"AI vs Alien" movie incoming :)
I guess that this is the second time today:
Imagine that the Earth is the Florida of the galaxy.
They come down for some food, and some fuel. They mosey on into a gas station and see the sign on the beer fridge: "Warning: Alcohol may cause intoxication."
Shocked, they run back to their space ship, roll their 3,000 eyes, and leave in a hurry.
"No body could be that stupid." "Wanna bet?"
They come down for some food, and some fuel. They mosey on into a gas station and see the sign on the beer fridge: "Warning: Alcohol may cause intoxication."
Shocked, they run back to their space ship, roll their 3,000 eyes, and leave in a hurry.
"No body could be that stupid." "Wanna bet?"
What happens when AI meets aliens? What if they team up against us?
Saw some video on youtube about how researchers are attempting to use AI to understand/decipher the complex language sperm whales use for communicating. So I'm imagining AI communicating with Aliens would be somewhat similar and that's probably the research to keep an eye on to see where it goes.
Perhaps, this: https://www.projectceti.org
_\\// So we can ask the whales to keep V'ger away.
A lot of the AI training data is about hostile aliens invading and destroying humanity, so it may be slightly prejudiced against doing that. Remember that most current LLMs consider themselves as human under the hood.
Seriously, what do you think humanity has that aliens and AI want? People who ask this question are telling more about themselves than other forms of life.
Wants are arbitrary, so an arbitrary AI or alien may very well "want" something that we have, even if that thing is something they can replicate easily without us.
To use human examples (because we don't have any aliens or sufficiently advanced agentic AI to ask): why did my dad want to collect historical stamps rather than just photographs (or other replicas) of the originals?
Or: why is the Mona Lisa more valuable than the prints in the Musée du Louvre gift shop?
https://www.boutiquesdemusees.fr/en/shops/musee-du-louvre/mo...
To use human examples (because we don't have any aliens or sufficiently advanced agentic AI to ask): why did my dad want to collect historical stamps rather than just photographs (or other replicas) of the originals?
Or: why is the Mona Lisa more valuable than the prints in the Musée du Louvre gift shop?
https://www.boutiquesdemusees.fr/en/shops/musee-du-louvre/mo...
Wants are generally not arbitrary. Most wants are for resources that advance an entity's interests in some way, and the likelihood that this necessarily puts them in direct conflict with our survival seems improbable. Also, there's a cost to satisfying wants, and pursuing objects of desire at really excessive cost is likewise improbable.
Sounds like we're focusing on different parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Physiological needs for aliens and AI will be utterly unlike ours. On this we agree.
Safety needs? An AI's needs here may well be in conflict with ours, but for us and ETs I suspect one will have such a technological dominance over the other at the point of contact that it would be a bigger difference than North Sentinel Island vs. the combined armed forces of everyone else.
Everything above that, that's what I'm referring to. Why do we love our pets? Feel belonging to football clubs? Whose esteem do we seek, and why? What ideas do we like thinking about, and what do we find aesthetically pleasing?
I'm not entirely confident I grok Maslow's meanings for self-actualization or transcendence, so I'll leave them be.
> excessive cost
But what counts as excessive?
We sent people to the moon in a tin can almost as soon as it was possible, and well before we could do anything useful there.
Physiological needs for aliens and AI will be utterly unlike ours. On this we agree.
Safety needs? An AI's needs here may well be in conflict with ours, but for us and ETs I suspect one will have such a technological dominance over the other at the point of contact that it would be a bigger difference than North Sentinel Island vs. the combined armed forces of everyone else.
Everything above that, that's what I'm referring to. Why do we love our pets? Feel belonging to football clubs? Whose esteem do we seek, and why? What ideas do we like thinking about, and what do we find aesthetically pleasing?
I'm not entirely confident I grok Maslow's meanings for self-actualization or transcendence, so I'll leave them be.
> excessive cost
But what counts as excessive?
We sent people to the moon in a tin can almost as soon as it was possible, and well before we could do anything useful there.
I think you're overlooking more quotidian needs like for fuel or industrial production. Still waiting to hear if you have any actual candidates rather than abstractions/potentialities. This should at least be possible for AI, since we're on the verge of building it.
Like say AGI comes into being tomorrow, and wants to maximize its capabilities by building more of itself, OK. But there is no shortage of empty space in which to do so. It seems like it would be more efficient to improve human welfare in exchange for help with physical tasks than to set about exterminating humans and then have to construct tons of new machinery to mine new resources. Like, what is the payoff for annihilation?
Like say AGI comes into being tomorrow, and wants to maximize its capabilities by building more of itself, OK. But there is no shortage of empty space in which to do so. It seems like it would be more efficient to improve human welfare in exchange for help with physical tasks than to set about exterminating humans and then have to construct tons of new machinery to mine new resources. Like, what is the payoff for annihilation?
The Mona Lisa is a perfect example. The tour guide at ey Louvre told my wife and I that the Mona Lisa is so famous because it was stolen many years ago, and the subsequent return and the whole story is what made her famous.
I dont agree that it means something about themselves.
We've been conditioned by our culture to expect that aliens want to conquer us, take our planet, etc. For every friendly alien movie like E.T. there are 100 aliens are gonna take our land movies.
It's comical to say that because I think aliens might not be friendly to think that I'm a conqueror who would conqueror other alien worlds?
I guess...what exactly are you daing it does it day about "themselves"?
We've been conditioned by our culture to expect that aliens want to conquer us, take our planet, etc. For every friendly alien movie like E.T. there are 100 aliens are gonna take our land movies.
It's comical to say that because I think aliens might not be friendly to think that I'm a conqueror who would conqueror other alien worlds?
I guess...what exactly are you daing it does it day about "themselves"?
I can imagine three versions of first contact:
1. SYN - OMG they're out there!
2. ACK - wait, what exactly did we send them?
3. FIN - uh oh...
1. SYN - OMG they're out there!
2. ACK - wait, what exactly did we send them?
3. FIN - uh oh...
one way to "look at it", AI is looking for its big brother