= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on The Great Filter is early, or AI is hard - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (74)
Or the origin of life is hard.
Or the evolution of multicellular life is hard.
Or the evolution of neural systems is hard.
Or the breakaway evolution of human-level intelligence is hard.
(These are not the same thing as an early filter.)
Or none of that is hard, and the universe is filled with intelligences ripping apart galaxies. They are just expanding their presence at near the speed of light, so we can't see them until it is too late.
Why not? I thought the great filter was anything that prevented ever-expanding intelligence visibly modifying the universe, usually with the additional premise that most or all of the filtering would happen at a single stage of the process (hence 'great').
If they haven't gotten here yet at near-lightspeed, that means their origins don't lie in our past; the question of the great filter remains to be explained.
Evolution is not an ever-expanding intelligence. Before the stage of recursively improving intelligence (human-level, at minimum), I wouldn't call it a filter. But maybe this is an argument about definitions.
You do seem to be using the term in a non-standard way. Here's the first use of the term from Hanson's original essay:
The origin and evolution of life and intelligence are explicitly listed as possible filters; Hanson uses "Great Filter" to mean essentially "whatever the resolution to the Fermi Paradox is". In my experience, this also seems to be the common usage of the term.