Humanity, Post Humanity, A.I & Aliens

[TheVat]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:28 AM, TheVat said:

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.  

Still interested in a reply.  I was responding to your conjecture

On 3/9/2023 at 2:14 AM, Intoscience said:

. 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

I realize that nonresponse is usually a form of reply, so of course you are under no obligation here, if you feel the question can't be addressed.  I will say I am skeptical that aliens could become aware of us so quickly.

[Genady]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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.

You didn't mention one solution which does not require new physics. If we could get very close to the speed of light, travel anywhere wouldn't take too long for a traveler. For example, with a speed of 0.999c, she would reach the next star in a couple of months.

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Genady said:

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

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)

In this series of Reith Lectures by Prof Stewart Russell (well worth a listen) in which he covers that and many other apsects of AI in reasonable and entertaining depth.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

In this series of Reith Lectures by Prof Stewart Russell (well worth a listen) in which he covers that and many other apsects of AI in reasonable and entertaining depth.

Thanks. Unfortunately, I cannot fully comprehend contents by listening because of a form of APD. Do these lectures exist in a written format?

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Thanks. Unfortunately, I cannot fully comprehend contents by listening because of a form of APD. Do these lectures exist in a written format?

I'm sure they must have been transcibed, sorry no time to look, be worth starting with a q' @ the BBC; my summary of his position on the q of control is, it's not a q of control it's a q of setting the objectives correctly before we turn it on; for me, it's akin to Asimov's <edit (I was forgeting his zeroth law)> 3 4 laws of robotics, but written in the form of an argument, rather than an order, trickier than it sound's to the point that we don't know how to write it, yet; but then we don't know how to build it, yet. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sure they must have been transcibed, sorry no time to look, be worth starting with a q' @ the BBC; my summary of his position on the q of control is, it's not a q of control it's a q of setting the objectives correctly before we turn it on; for me, it's akin to Asimov's 3 laws of robotics, but written in the form of an argument, rather than an order, trickier than it sound's to the point that we don't know how to write it, yet; but then we don't know how to build it, yet. 

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

SSShhh, are you trying to start a fight? There's a lot of Asimov fan's in these here parts... 😉🖖

[dimreepr]

On 3/11/2023 at 1:04 PM, Genady said:

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

Nevertheless it does raise an interesting question, worth discussing; assuming general AI is by no means impossible.

If we manage to create a G.A.I. we're essentially creating our twin, and who wouldn't send their twin to work their shift? Even a scientist would rather think about the problem than scrub the dishes.

The question being, what would our world look like if no-one had to work? 

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what would our world look like if no-one had to work? 

Parties and wars.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Parties and wars.

War's sound like too much work, if it's waged by machinery... Ditto parties... 

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

War's sound like too much work, if it's waged by machinery... Ditto parties... 

It's all fun.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

It's all fun.

It's a bit deeper than that and it's not really science fiction, in the same sense as a warp drive.

For instance, can you have fun if you don't work to earn it?

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For instance, can you have fun if you don't work to earn it?

I guess I can. I don't work - let's see - about half of my life by now.

[Intoscience]

On 3/11/2023 at 1:04 PM, Genady said:

The reference to Asimov is appropriate because this topic, in my opinion, is no more than discussion of science fiction with a straight face, and as such is good for entertainment purposes.

Depends on your definition of science fiction. If you want to choose every idea that is currently not doable but at some point in the future is plausible or maybe even possible then sure its all science fiction. 

I'm sure many scholars back in the day dismissed the ides of people in flying machines, devices that could communicate over thousands of miles, the ability to cook food in small devices in just a few minutes... any speculation about the future is going to based somewhat on your definition of science fiction. You seem very confident that A.I is never going to become so intelligent that it has the potential to dominate the human race. You are a computer programmer, so I respect your opinion on this matter. Honestly I hope you are right.

And as you say its just for fun, I'm not advocating anything I'm merely speculating on what I believe are plausible, granted somewhat fantastical, possibilities for our future.   

On 3/10/2023 at 3:40 PM, TheVat said:

I realize that nonresponse is usually a form of reply, so of course you are under no obligation here, if you feel the question can't be addressed.  I will say I am skeptical that aliens could become aware of us so quickly

i chose the speculation forum since this whole thread is based on speculation, personal opinion and plausible though possibly fanciful ideas. I respect your speculation, I shared the same and may possible flit back (I tend to on many of these subjects).

Though I will point out. All our ideas are based on our experiences and our current understanding of science and available technology. Your speculation is based on (rightly so) this. We assume, A.I and/or Aliens would share our motives, abilities, intelligence... when we speculate skeptically.   

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm sure many scholars back in the day dismissed the ides of people in flying machines, devices that could communicate over thousands of miles, the ability to cook food in small devices in just a few minutes...

What does make you sure it happened? Do you have references?

[Sensei]

19 hours ago, Genady said:

Quote

War's sound like too much work, if it's waged by machinery... Ditto parties... 

It's all fun.

..as long as you are the Emperor..

[Alex_Krycek]

A worthy dialogue.  In my view, the questions of aliens and A.I. are crucially important because they represent potential extinction level events for mankind.  A.I. could escape the pandora's box quite easily and run amok.  Similarly, a highly advanced extra-terrestrial species could show up to our doorstep one day with the intent to take over the planet and annihilate our species.

Instead of ridiculing those who raise these questions we should be forming concrete action plans in case they really happen, similar to NASA's NEO action plan.  As the nuclear age was a catalyst for a new level of international cooperation forged to deal with the specter of nuclear war; so too should A.I. and aliens spur international cooperation with respect to these existential threats.  

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Depends on your definition of science fiction. If you want to choose every idea that is currently not doable but at some point in the future is plausible or maybe even possible then sure its all science fiction. 

My definition is quite standard. Science fiction Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster:

Quote

: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You seem very confident that A.I is never going to become so intelligent that it has the potential to dominate the human race.

No, this is not what I am confident in. I am confident that the technology, which is called AI now, will not become as intelligent as humans.

If some other technology will become so intelligent, or this current technology will dominate human race without becoming intelligent, I don't have opinion on that.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

possibilities for our future.   

What you say is possible. My point is that there are so many different things which are all equally possible that any one of them has extremely low probability of actually happening. That is why I call it science fiction - one of millions of possible scenarios.

[Sensei]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Instead of ridiculing those who raise these questions we should be forming concrete action plans in case they really happen,

..it is way too late..

 

20 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Similarly, a highly advanced extra-terrestrial species could show up to our doorstep one day with the intent to take over the planet and annihilate our species.

..if you are really advanced, you can create the entire Universe yourself..

 

 

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What does make you sure it happened? Do you have references?

Nope, I can't be sure but somehow I doubt human interaction hasn't changed so much in the past few hundred maybe thousands of years. Flat Earth, Earth at the centre of the solar system, etc... 

A.I becoming intelligent, life beyond our planet... No?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

What you say is possible. My point is that there are so many different things which are all equally possible that any one of them has extremely low probability of actually happening. That is why I call it science fiction - one of millions of possible scenarios

This doesn't make any sense to me. The odds whether or not it may or may not happen doesn't dis include the subject from being a possibility and speculating on the what the consequences might or might not be. I never understood this dismissive skeptical attitude. Being skeptical is a good thing, being totally dismissive of plausible possibilities, seems rather an odd stance to me. Filtering through ideas to stack up the odds so focus remains on the most likely possibility makes perfect sense. But as we have often found even the rare and sometimes unpredictable happens also. 

I always refer back to a couple of adages - Never say never.  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best and usually its somewhere in between.   

1 hour ago, Genady said:

No, this is not what I am confident in. I am confident that the technology, which is called AI now, will not become as intelligent as humans

Ok, fair enough you are in a much better position than me to argue this.

But by your own admission A.I "now". So do you think that it is quite possible and/or given current advancements AI in the near future may have the capability?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Nope, I can't be sure but somehow I doubt human interaction hasn't changed so much in the past few hundred maybe thousands of years. Flat Earth, Earth at the centre of the solar system, etc... 

A.I becoming intelligent, life beyond our planet... No?

Well, I don't believe that 'scholars' in the past 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

dismissed the ideas of people in flying machines, devices that could communicate over thousands of miles, the ability to cook food in small devices in just a few minutes

or other similar possibilities. If anything, in the past many things were considered possible, which now we think are impossible, such as perpetuum mobile for example. Advancements of knowledge show, on one hand, what is impossible, and make, on the other hand, reality of what is possible.

Regarding AI, I think I've already answered above:

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I am confident that the technology, which is called AI now, will not become as intelligent as humans.

If some other technology will become so intelligent, or this current technology will dominate human race without becoming intelligent, I don't have opinion on that.

"Life beyond our planet"? What is the question?

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A worthy dialogue.  In my view, the questions of aliens and A.I. are crucially important because they represent potential extinction level events for mankind.  A.I. could escape the pandora's box quite easily and run amok.  Similarly, a highly advanced extra-terrestrial species could show up to our doorstep one day with the intent to take over the planet and annihilate our species.

The problem is that anyone who puts their neck on the line to discuss these topics are ridiculed as nut jobs, fantasists or judged similarly. Another trend which i find rather odd, since Aliens are more than plausible given the vastness and age of the universe. A.I is developing at a rate which is alarming to some leaders in the field. 

If you are a scientist who believes in aliens or A.I sentience (or intelligence that is equal to humans at least) your are sneered at. Yet if you believe in god that's fine.

I find is sad and ironic. 

I think Eric Weinstein talks about this attitude - Remain skeptical, but please remain openminded to possibilities that are plausible. 

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

"Life beyond our planet"? What is the question?

Do you dismiss the idea of life beyond our planet and/or intelligent life beyond our planet? 

[Genady]

20 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So do you think that it is quite possible and/or given current advancements AI in the near future may have the capability?

I think it is possible. I don't think it is quite possible.

 

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Do you dismiss the idea of life beyond our planet and/or intelligent life beyond our planet? 

No, I do not.

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

If anything, in the past many things were considered possible, which now we think are impossible, such as perpetuum mobile for example. Advancements of knowledge show, on one hand, what is impossible, and make, on the other hand, reality of what is possible.

I have no problem dismissing ideas that are shown to be impossible. I have no problem filtering through ideas that maybe plausible but unlikely. 

For example FTL, our current understanding of physics shows FTL to be impossible. So based on this I would most likely dismiss anything that directly implies FTL.  However there are ideas to find loop holes around this that maybe plausible given some high energy circumstances such as wormholes, space time curving, parallel timelines etc... all fanciful yes, granted, but not impossible. 

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I think it is possible. I don't think it is quite possible

Ok, so why is the discussion of A.I advanced intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi?

Why is the discussion of Alien intelligence dismissible as being sci-fi?

Just to be clear when I state sci-fi in this context I mean -  impossible fantasy - not what is currently unproven but plausible. 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Just to be clear when I state sci-fi in this context I mean -  impossible fantasy

It is not what I called sci-fi (as I have explained above.) I call it sci-fi because it is one of millions of other possibilities, and not in any way more plausible / important / interesting than others.