Very dim? Or very unusually given paperclipping?
Given that Burning the Cosmic Commons is already portrayed as a risk from uFAI that are paperclipping I don't think it is unreasonable to ask why we don't see any effects of such outcomes in the visible universe if the risk of such events is >70% for technological civilisations. I'm just looking for empirical evidence here that might support the conclusions. Of course, it might take one or two decades before we are capable of detecting such anomalies. Still, given the age of the universe you'd expect to see some artifacts if your premise is that technological civilizations haven't evolved only once in the visible universe. If there are other reasons, then as I said before there might be other risks more important than uFAI to explain the fermi-paradox, which would be an importing observation too.
I don't think you could see any of those things very easily in other galaxies if they were there. What you can see in other galaxies is chemical compounds - through mass spectroscopy. That shows some of them are rich in "life-like" stuff. Also, there is no shortage of darkish matter out there.
[...] SIAI's Scary Idea goes way beyond the mere statement that there are risks as well as benefits associated with advanced AGI, and that AGI is a potential existential risk.
[...] Although an intense interest in rationalism is one of the hallmarks of the SIAI community, still I have not yet seen a clear logical argument for the Scary Idea laid out anywhere. (If I'm wrong, please send me the link, and I'll revise this post accordingly. Be aware that I've already at least skimmed everything Eliezer Yudkowsky has written on related topics.)
So if one wants a clear argument for the Scary Idea, one basically has to construct it oneself.
[...] If you put the above points all together, you come up with a heuristic argument for the Scary Idea. Roughly, the argument goes something like: If someone builds an advanced AGI without a provably Friendly architecture, probably it will have a hard takeoff, and then probably this will lead to a superhuman AGI system with an architecture drawn from the vast majority of mind-architectures that are not sufficiently harmonious with the complex, fragile human value system to make humans happy and keep humans around.
The line of argument makes sense, if you accept the premises.
But, I don't.
Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It), October 29 2010. Thanks to XiXiDu for the pointer.