= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Coacher comments on AI as a resolution to the Fermi Paradox. - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (24)
For hypothesis to hold AI needs to: 1. Kill their creators efficiently. 2. Don't spread 3. Do both these things every time any AI is created with near 100% success ratio.
Seems a lot of presumptions, with no good arguments for any of them?
On the other hand I don't see, why AI that does spread can not be a great filter. Lets assume: 1. Every advanced civilization creates AI soon after creating radio. 2. Every AI spreads immediately (hard take off) and does that in near speed of light. 3. Every AI that reaches us, immediately kills us. 4. We have not seen any AI and we are still alive. That can only be explained by anthropic principle - every advanced civilization, that have at least bit more advanced neighbors is already dead. Every advanced civilization, that have at least bit less advanced neighbors, have not seen them, as they have not yet invented radio. This solves Fermi paradox and we can still hope to see some primitive life forms in other planets. (also AI may be approaching us at speed of light and will wipe us out any moment now)
If it is true, we should find ourselves surprisingly early in the history of Universe. But if we consider that frequency of gamma-ray bursts is quickly diminishing, and so we could not be very early, because there were so many planet killing gamma-bursts, these two tendencies may cancel each other and we are just in time.
Also, what if intelligent life is just a rare event? Like not rare enough to explain Fermi paradox by itself, but rare enough, that we could be considered among earliest and therefore surprisingly early in the history of universe? Given how long universe will last, we actually are quite early: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
(Retracted: If we take total number of stars that will be ever created we are somewhere in first 7 per cent (if I remember correctly - can't find a link), so we are early, but no surprisingly early)
Update: I was wrong. we are surprisingly late. 95 per cent stars is already created. http://www.wired.com/2012/11/universe-making-stars/
Update 2: but when the Sun was born it was exactly 50 per cent of stars were already born. It is strong argument for rare earth.