Humanity, Post Humanity, A.I & Aliens

[Intoscience]

Ok, so I've been pondering all the above for a while now.

I've been considering, human evolution, development, advancements, consequences, purpose... I find it all very fascinating but also confusing, chaotic, sometimes troubling sometimes exciting, always wonderous. Like many people interested in science in general, I have considered all the questions, philosophy mainstream science, data and observations surrounding humanity, our place in the universe, our purpose (if there is one) and our future. I often wander from on idea to another from one belief (for want of a better word) to another swapping camps so to speak depending on the latest trend or data set or idea...

There is so much to think about, so many possibilities and so little resolution that it can be exciting, frustrating and wonderous all wrapped up together. 

Ok, so enough of the rambling and to the point,

I listened to a debate surrounding the Tic Tac incident involving observations and witness statements from Commander David Fravor and his team. here is a link to the wiki page on the subject matter should anyone not be over familiar with the case -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

So far as I can tell there has been no credible resolution to what was witnessed and recorded. The UFO/UFA alien speculation camp are claiming that this is clear evidence of alien technology due to the unexplainable motion of the objects. Then the skeptic camp are claiming an array of normal explainable phenomenon as an explanation and that the data has been so far diagnosed as inconclusive but the likelihood of alien visitation being zero. Then you have the conspiracy camp who claim this is clear evidence of military technology being secretly tested and by a government, USA or otherwise and the UFO/UAP story is a diversion.

I was thinking about this and I realised it could be all the above, and more. The government/s would certainly have motive either way to invent a cover story to either protect secret military advancements, save face towards other nations, or control the potential hysteria from the public. The best lies are the ones that are mostly true!

This then got me thinking about A.I aliens, and technological advancements in respect to humans. where we are heading, what the potential (good or bad) is and what this may mean for humanity in the future. I considered the following scenarios that I feel are plausible, though quite radical: 

• Human technology will advance to a point where the technology (A.G.I) overtakes all to become the dominant force on the planet and possibly the galaxy 
• Aliens are prevalent throughout the universe and within our own galaxy some which are far advanced in terms of scientific understanding that we would only recognise this as magic
• Future humans are so far advanced that they are capable of and so do so visit the past, possibly even manipulating timelines. his we would have no way of detecting.
• Future A.I is so far advanced that it has the capability to visit the past, even manipulating timelines. 
• Humans are completely alone and are the pioneers of development which will lead to the population of the galaxy and then the universe.
• Humans are a blip on the timeline, an anomaly, nothing more than a very rare and random phenomena. Where this blip might grow and evolve over a long period of time or just suddenly end as quickly as it came to be.
• Human advancements will continue, but slow down, and we will reach the limits of what is possible. 

As it stands these are just a handful of ideas floating around in my simple mind.

Each time I watch, read or listen to something new I tend towards one or the other on this list. Currently my speculation is that. We are being observed. We are being watched intently, especially so since the birth of atomic weapons. When we began the nuclear program and started to detonate such weapons of mass destruction we became of some interest. Why? well maybe the pattern of development trends such that the next step/breakthrough in technology enables the ability to traverse across star systems. At this point we become a possible threat, nuisance or ally.  

 

[Genady]

When I was a teen and science fiction literature was in bloom, all these and other scenarios were considered.

As to me, humans in 1000 years from now are as interesting as humans 100000 years ago. Very limited personal relation.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, so I've been pondering all the above for a while now.

I've been considering, human evolution, development, advancements, consequences, purpose... I find it all very fascinating but also confusing, chaotic, sometimes troubling sometimes exciting, always wonderous. Like many people interested in science in general, I have considered all the questions, philosophy mainstream science, data and observations surrounding humanity, our place in the universe, our purpose (if there is one) and our future. I often wander from on idea to another from one belief (for want of a better word) to another swapping camps so to speak depending on the latest trend or data set or idea...

There is so much to think about, so many possibilities and so little resolution that it can be exciting, frustrating and wonderous all wrapped up together. 

Ok, so enough of the rambling and to the point,

I listened to a debate surrounding the Tic Tac incident involving observations and witness statements from Commander David Fravor and his team. here is a link to the wiki page on the subject matter should anyone not be over familiar with the case -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

So far as I can tell there has been no credible resolution to what was witnessed and recorded. The UFO/UFA alien speculation camp are claiming that this is clear evidence of alien technology due to the unexplainable motion of the objects. Then the skeptic camp are claiming an array of normal explainable phenomenon as an explanation and that the data has been so far diagnosed as inconclusive but the likelihood of alien visitation being zero. Then you have the conspiracy camp who claim this is clear evidence of military technology being secretly tested and by a government, USA or otherwise and the UFO/UAP story is a diversion.

I was thinking about this and I realised it could be all the above, and more. The government/s would certainly have motive either way to invent a cover story to either protect secret military advancements, save face towards other nations, or control the potential hysteria from the public. The best lies are the ones that are mostly true!

This then got me thinking about A.I aliens, and technological advancements in respect to humans. where we are heading, what the potential (good or bad) is and what this may mean for humanity in the future. I considered the following scenarios that I feel are plausible, though quite radical: 

• Human technology will advance to a point where the technology (A.G.I) overtakes all to become the dominant force on the planet and possibly the galaxy 
• Aliens are prevalent throughout the universe and within our own galaxy some which are far advanced in terms of scientific understanding that we would only recognise this as magic
• Future humans are so far advanced that they are capable of and so do so visit the past, possibly even manipulating timelines. his we would have no way of detecting.
• Future A.I is so far advanced that it has the capability to visit the past, even manipulating timelines. 
• Humans are completely alone and are the pioneers of development which will lead to the population of the galaxy and then the universe.
• Humans are a blip on the timeline, an anomaly, nothing more than a very rare and random phenomena. Where this blip might grow and evolve over a long period of time or just suddenly end as quickly as it came to be.
• Human advancements will continue, but slow down, and we will reach the limits of what is possible. 

As it stands these are just a handful of ideas floating around in my simple mind.

Each time I watch, read or listen to something new I tend towards one or the other on this list. Currently my speculation is that. We are being observed. We are being watched intently, especially so since the birth of atomic weapons. When we began the nuclear program and started to detonate such weapons of mass destruction we became of some interest. Why? well maybe the pattern of development trends such that the next step/breakthrough in technology enables the ability to traverse across star systems. At this point we become a possible threat, nuisance or ally.  

 

This all begs the question, if you were supreme leader, what would you do?

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

When I was a teen and science fiction literature was in bloom, all these and other scenarios were considered.

As to me, humans in 1000 years from now are as interesting as humans 100000 years ago. Very limited personal relation.

Does it have to be 1000 years from now to consider implications of imminently pending technological advancement that has the potential for so much change? Do you think that such is beyond your life or your children's life?

In addition what happened 10,000 years ago did have an impact on your life today. knowing the evolution that went before to result in your life today is and can be useful. You don't require personal relation to understand or feel/observe the effects.

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This all begs the question, if you were supreme leader, what would you do?

Why does it beg this question? 

The question it might beg is - who or what will be/is the supreme leader, collectively or singularly speaking?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Does it have to be 1000 years from now to consider implications of imminently pending technological advancement that has the potential for so much change? Do you think that such is beyond your life or your children's life?

In respect to scenarios considered in the OP, yes.

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

In respect to scenarios considered in the OP, yes.

Fine, you are making an assumption based on your own ideas/beliefs/understanding. I'm doing the same to a degree, though on first appearance it may seem rather fanciful. One could easily imagine going back 100 years with an example of current technology, it would seem like magic or beyond understanding to that generation.    

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

One could easily imagine going back 100 years with an example of current technology, it would seem like magic or beyond understanding to that generation.

To ignorant people today, it is also magic and beyond understanding. To knowledgeable people 100 years ago, no.

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

To ignorant people today, it is also magic and beyond understanding. To knowledgeable people 100 years ago, no.

Yes, true, maybe so...

Though as history has shown us, predictions about the future are often over or under egged and many times unprecedented. 

Would you agree or not that A.I is developing at a rate such that the timeline predicts imminent intelligence versatility performance beyond human capability?

If no why not and if so how long before such? 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Would you agree or not that A.I is developing at a rate such that the timeline predicts imminent intelligence versatility performance beyond human capability?

If you mean a human-like intelligence, no.

 

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

If no why not

Because I know how computers work. 

[Intoscience]

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

If you mean a human-like intelligence, no.

 

Because I know how computers work. 

Ok, I know you have an expert view on this due to your Masters in computer programming. So I appreciate your take.

When you talk about human intelligence within this context what are you comparing to? also are you predicting that "human like" or greater intelligence is either not possible by a machine or so far in the future its not suitable to make predictions around?

[dimreepr]

57 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why does it beg this question? 

Because you're talking about the fantastic, that you have no control over, which for me, begs the question, what if you did have control?

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, I know you have an expert view on this due to your Masters in computer programming. So I appreciate your take.

When you talk about human intelligence within this context what are you comparing to? also are you predicting that "human like" or greater intelligence is either not possible by a machine or so far in the future its not suitable to make predictions around?

It < edit> He means it's a different type of intelligence, with different motivations; and a whole topic on its own... 

Edited March 9, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

When you talk about human intelligence within this context what are you comparing to?

To me, to you, to any healthy human being I've ever met.

 

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

also are you predicting that "human like" or greater intelligence is either not possible by a machine or so far in the future its not suitable to make predictions around?

Yes, I don't think that any machine of today is capable of acquiring such intelligence. They can very well imitate some aspects of it, though, and even can be better in them than the original.

"Machines" of the future? I have no idea.

[Intoscience]

 

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Because you're talking about the fantastic

Yes, to us now it seems that way. 50 years ago the internet would seem much the same to them. This is my point entirely, and one which I'm keen to explore. I don't want to fall into an emotional trap of assuming that all we conceive is fantastical or fiction. Although many of which will turn out to be granted, history shows us this but some will go beyond any expectations and be totally unprecedented. 

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

To me, to you, to any healthy human being I've ever met

Ok, I see this is a topic all of its own and many hours of debate among many disciplines of science and philosophy.

Your reply is a very broad statement and not specific to the context I'm considering. To be fair to you, I cannot really describe in terms of any real definition of what I personally consider as human intelligence. But if I'm being specific in one aspect, then this would be the ability to reason, predict and react in such away that any engagement would be futile.   

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I don't think that any machine of today is capable of acquiring such intelligence. They can very well imitate some aspects of it, though, and even can be better in them than the original.

"Machines" of the future? I have no idea

As above, specific intelligence which could result in the demise of humanity?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

50 years ago the internet would seem much the same to them.

50 years ago? 1973? IBM360 and others? Oh, you are so wrong!

 

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

the ability to reason, predict and react in such away that any engagement would be futile.   

Yes, my answers above apply to these abilities in today's machines. But you don't need that much to kill us.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

 

Yes, to us now it seems that way. 50 years ago the internet would seem much the same to them. This my point entirely, and one which I'm keen to explore. I don't want to fall into an emotional trap of assuming that all we conceive is fantastical or fiction. Many of which will turn out to be granted, history shows us this. 

But your topic is about what will be, not what has been; for instance, 50 years ago the internet was not considered, specifically, to be impossible.

 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

50 years ago? 1973? IBM360 and others? Oh, you are so wrong!

 

Yes, my answers above apply to these abilities in today's machines. But you don't need that much to kill us.

Ok, 50 years was a bit conservative, agreed. 

I'm not talking about the capability to kill us, I'm talking about an intelligence of some form with the ability to do so with us having no means of controlling their/its decision or the outcome.  

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

But your topic is about what will be, not what has been; for instance, 50 years ago the internet was not considered, specifically, to be impossible.

 

The year I specified is irrelevant to my point. Ok lets go with 200 years ago if it makes everyone feel better.  

Why do I feel like I'm spending all my time defending a position rather than discuss the speculation/assumptions and possibilities, gees...

What is so fantastical about considering A.I to evolving beyond expectations and beyond human intelligence? Genady has gave reasons why Genady thinks/believes that this is far away if at all possible. 

What is so fantastical to imagine life beyond Earth that is further advanced in science and technology than we currently are? 

Both are plausible based on the information we have to hand and the history that precedes us?

  

Edited March 9, 2023 by Intoscience

[TheVat]

Quote

We are being watched intently, especially so since the birth of atomic weapons. When we began the nuclear program and started to detonate such weapons of mass destruction we became of some interest...

Always curious, when this theory pops up, how ETs hundreds or thousands of light-years away could detect a nuke test on a tiny ball of rock sitting close to a massive and continuous thermonuclear blast (Sol).  I guess one possible is a galaxy permeating mesh of nano sensors - a nearby sensor picks up early testing, passes the intel on to the mesh, and....centuries later, ETs get the memo.  So it's a question how the response was so quick.  Trinity blast, 1945.  Kenneth Arnold sees saucers, 1947.  

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I'm talking about an intelligence of some form with the ability to do so with us having no means of controlling their/its decision or the outcome.  

Everything you have mentioned is not difficult to imagine. If anything, it is too easy to imagine. Also, it is not difficult to imagine hundreds of other, unmentioned possibilities. This is what makes it idle for me.

Regarding an intelligence of some form with the ability to do so with us having no means of controlling their/its decision or the outcome, what difference does it make if its name is HAL 9000 or Putin?

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, so I've been pondering all the above for a while now.

!

Moderator Note

Keep in mind that we are a site for discussing science. Not for science fiction being real, and not for advancing conspiracies.

 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, Genady said:

Because I know how computers work. 

Okay, but do you know how humans work?

[Genady]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Okay, but do you know how humans work?

You mean, human brain, I guess. No, I don't.

[Ken Fabian]

I think AI that takes over or turns on (in the attack sense) the world is very unlikely, however becoming (economically) dependent on AI and having it fail on us seems a more credible problem. AI that turns on people (in other senses) are quite possible; how soon after there was an internet was there internet porn?

I think the lightspeed limit isn't going to go away; any alien civilisations will be as bound by it as we are and there won't be magic technologies that circumvent it and for all intents and purposes we are alone.

Manipulating timelines isn't going to happen, nor time machines; time being a one way street isn't going to change.

I doubt humans are the only tech-sentient species but that lightspeed limit and the rarity may mean we don't encounter any, so we won't know.

I don't see any inevitability of expanding beyond this world - for all that the idea of it has wide appeal the reality is it is extraordinarily difficult to colonise space; being desperate to do so will probably be the least conducive conditions for achieving it. Only an extraordinarily wealthy and capable Earth could possibly manage it.

Humanity may well be a blip - here and gone again; we seem incapable of dealing with problems that we know are real and very serious like global warming in a systematic manner. A lot of us would rather use our attention and intellect on imaginary things than use them for dealing with real world problems.

I expect the last to be true - science and technology will reach limits and being able to imagine things (humans are very well supplied with active imaginations that aren't bound by any physical laws) like FTL, time travel, interstellar colonies won't make them happen, not even with an abundance of hoping and wishing and praying. Or even trying.

It isn't even especially pessimistic; these things are imaginary and I am not so affected by the imaginary failing to come to fruition as I am by reality.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Keep in mind that we are a site for discussing science. Not for science fiction being real, and not for advancing conspiracies.

 

Which is why I posted it in speculations and why i'm not trying to advocate anything specific. I was just writing down my current thoughts and open for discussion. If its a problem then feel free to close the thread. But in my mind, yes, its not current mainstream science but some may one day become so and there is good evidence to suggest this based on current technology development. 

Additionally during the discussion there's no reason why all the above and anything else can't be debunked, it may help clear up a few things for other readers. 

4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think the lightspeed limit isn't going to go away; any alien civilisations will be as bound by it as we are and there won't be magic technologies that circumvent it and for all intents and purposes we are alone.

Yes, this is a very big sticking point especially so for human colonisation of distant places, even close by star systems with are current technology and understanding are thousands of years away. 

i often ponder this problem and I agree the current understanding of physics limits human ability to travel outside our solar system. So, I ponder solutions which maybe not ideal but may offer some hope. people consider generation star-ships, cryogenic incubation... I think in reality visitation will not come about by biological humans. i imagine probes, A.I or similar which can endure the harsh environments and operate for long periods of time. 

Time is a problem for humans because it is currently very limited. So to find a solution to galactic travel,  there might be 4 possible options. We find the capability to extend human lives or consciousness. We find a way to travel FTL. We find a way to warp space-time. We discover new physics where there are extra dimension that can be utilised. 

All 4 seem ridiculously impossible, I agree. But there are people working on at least 2 of those solutions. I'm skeptical but remain open minded and interested. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What is so fantastical about considering A.I to evolving beyond expectations and beyond human intelligence?

Well, beyond expectations is a reasonable definition of fantastic and "beyond different to human intelligence" is a given; If A.I. every causes us a problem, it's because we made a mistake in setting it's objectives, not because of some prescient decision from the A.I..

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Which is why I posted it in speculations and why i'm not trying to advocate anything specific. I was just writing down my current thoughts and open for discussion. If its a problem then feel free to close the thread. But in my mind, yes, its not current mainstream science but some may one day become so and there is good evidence to suggest this based on current technology development. 

Additionally during the discussion there's no reason why all the above and anything else can't be debunked, it may help clear up a few things for other readers. 

Yes, this is a very big sticking point especially so for human colonisation of distant places, even close by star systems with are current technology and understanding are thousands of years away. 

i often ponder this problem and I agree the current understanding of physics limits human ability to travel outside our solar system. So, I ponder solutions which maybe not ideal but may offer some hope. people consider generation star-ships, cryogenic incubation... I think in reality visitation will not come about by biological humans. i imagine probes, A.I or similar which can endure the harsh environments and operate for long periods of time. 

Time is a problem for humans because it is currently very limited. So to find a solution to galactic travel,  there might be 4 possible options. We find the capability to extend human lives or consciousness. We find a way to travel FTL. We find a way to warp space-time. We discover new physics where there are extra dimension that can be utilised. 

All 4 seem ridiculously impossible, I agree. But there are people working on at least 2 of those solutions. I'm skeptical but remain open minded and interested. 

I was pondering the chance of us developing the technologies to invent anti-gravity, but then I realised that's like trying to invent an artificial left; right?

Edited March 10, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

In this article, the author argues that general AI cannot be fully controlled:

Quote

Invention of artificial general intelligence is predicted to cause a shift in the trajectory of human civilization. In order to reap the benefits and avoid pitfalls of such powerful technology it is important to be able to control it. However, possibility of controlling artificial general intelligence and its more advanced version, superintelligence, has not been formally established. In this paper, we present arguments as well as supporting evidence from multiple domains indicating that advanced AI can't be fully controlled. Consequences of uncontrollability of AI are discussed with respect to future of humanity and research on AI, and AI safety and security.

Honestly, I couldn't get through it and so I don't know what the arguments are and how convincing they are. Good luck! 

2008.04071.pdf (arxiv.org)