Bigfoot is arguably less plausible, a priori.
Is it? A priori, Bigfoot is just some unknown small population of a large mammal living in a remote forest, possibly a living fossil of, e.g., a giant ground sloth species. That's more possible than alien crafts. Not alien life, mind you, but crafts require interstellar travel to be plausible, and we have reason to doubt that. Even unmanned Von Neumann probes would have a very hard time arriving to their destination still functioning (never mind braking...), and non-inertial engines presume a violation of known physics so deep, it's unbelievable we've missed all signs of it being possible until now.
Thanks! I once wrote up a somewhat-parallel discussion on a different topic in Section 5.1 here:
… So this is the “null hypothesis” of what to expect if there’s no such thing as [blah]. By now there are probably ≈1000 person-years of experimental data created by [blah] researchers. In such a huge mountain of data, there is bound to be lots of “random noise and ad hoc misinterpretations” that happen to line up remarkably with researchers’ prior expectations about [blah]. The question is not “Are there results that seems to provide evidence for [blah]?”, but rather “Is there much more evidence for [blah] than could plausibly be filtered out of 1000 person-years of random noise, misinterpretations, experimental errors, bias, occasional fraud, gross incompetence, weird equipment malfunctions, etc.?” …
and I also linked to & excerpted yet another parallel discussion on yet a different topic by Scott Alexander, Section 17 here.
I think you're starting with the wrong prior. It's very distantly relevant whether there are aliens in the universe (or even in our past lightcone). It's important what is the prior for "aliens physically present on earth, now, at a scale (quantity and size) and tech level that makes them very intermittently and unreliably detectable". The second is orders of magnitude smaller than the first.
I do agree with your logic about the inequalities, but the magnitude of difference matters a lot. I give pretty low values for p[whistleblower|aliens] - p[whistleblower|no aliens] and the like, EVEN WHILE agreeing that it's greater than zero.
I agree with your conclusion, including the fact that we need some value for p[aliens that could easily remain hidden, but are screwing with us], and that this may even be the majority of the weight for p[our observations|aliens].
But is it necessarily unlikely that they would be screwing with us if they existed? That's something I don't like about the bigfoot comparison, it's obviously laughable that large apes are evading camera detection at every turn, but with aliens, presumably it would be trivial to do so. We know that they would have the means, so that only leaves the reasoning to do this. I also don't necessarily agree with the assumption that our commercial sensor tech is good enough to detect hypothetical aliens. Try filming a drone from a distance with your phone. It will look surprisingly unclear. Modern cameras are obviously more than adequate to film a bigfoot but I don't think so for aliens-the sky is big etc.
What I didn't get from your post is how the prosaic sensor anomalies/atmospheric oddities and statistical artifacts etc lends itself to explaining the much more zany claims that are now coming out of intelligence and intelligence connected people. It doesn't seem to explain someone claiming there are actual recovered bodies/craft, at all. My take on that is the psyops/disinfo angle you wrote off becomes much more likely.
Given real aliens, they would need to either have capped tech or actively trolling to explain even low quality observations or pieces of craft. Nonintervention laws and incorrigible global anti-high-tech supervision constraining aliens are somewhat plausible, coordinated trolling less so.
Expanding a comment I made in the other thread, take a look at the Wikipedia list of reported UFO sighthings. One thing that I immediately note scrolling this list is that the overwhelming majority of reports after 1950 are from the US. The last time aliens were sighted in Italy was 1978. In France, 1981. In Spain, 1979. Germany does not appear on the list at all. On the other hand, there are 42 entries for the US and the list is not even updated.
My priors on "UFO sighthings are a culture-bound illness of the US" are significantly higher than "Not only there are aliens but they are mostly ignoring everything outside America".
I know that the mainstream view on Lesswrong is that we aren't observing alien aircraft, so I doubt many here will disagree with the conclusion. But I wonder if people here agree with this particular argument for that conclusion. Basically, I claim that:
As a side note: I personally feel that P[observations | no aliens] is actually pretty low, i.e. the observations we have are truly quite odd / unexpected / hard-to-explain-prosaically. But it's not as low as P[observations | aliens]. This doesn't matter to the central argument (you just need to accept that the ratio P[observations | aliens] / P[observations | no aliens] is small) but I'm interested if people agree with that.
I see a lot of people commenting here and in related posts on the likelihood of aliens deliberately screwing with us and/or how improbable it is that advanced aliens would have bad stealth technology or ships that crash. So I wanted to add a few other possible scenarios into the discussion:
- Earth is a safari park where people go to see the pristine native wildlife (us). Occasionally some idiot tourist gets too close and disturbs that wildlife despite the many very clear warnings telling them not to. (Anyone who has ever worked with human tourists wi...
This is not about alien aircraft, this is just a completely wrong way to approach updating. The set of observations/experiments being evaluated is filtered by what was actually observed and by the narrative around the hypothesis (which is in turn not independent from what was actually observed). There are other potential observations that didn't happen, and that fact is also evidence, and yet more observations that did happen but aren't genre-appopriate. By not updating on these other potential observations, the evidence is heavily filtered, and so updatin...
Anyone who is confident no ufos are truly anomalous, please feel free to extend me odds for a bet here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/ufo-betting-put-up-or-shut-up
I have already paid out to two betters so far, and would like some more
"If alien aircraft were on Earth, they would need to be carefully calibrated to give us grainy distant glimpses (in every possible way) but never more. If alien aircraft are here, they’re screwing with us."
I don't know - this inference seems rather weak. I try to be on time to appointments, most of my failures are pretty small - observing me being late a minute or two a couple of times does not mean that I calibrate being late to a minute or two. Failures would naturally cluster near the border line.
Plus they might be actively erasing evidence when it is too obvious.
I think the prior for aliens having visited Earth should be lower, since it a priori it seems unlikely to me that aliens would interact with Earth but not to an extent which makes it clear to us that they have. My intuition is that its probably rare to get to other planets with sapient life before building a superintelligence (which would almost certainly be obvious to us if it did arrive) and even if you do manage to go to other planets with sapient life, I don't think aliens would not try to contract us if they're anything like humans.
...Finally, and most importantly, you have to condition not just on what we see, but what we don’t see. We get grainy videos of some weird thing in the distance, but never close-up HD video. Pilots report seeing something flying far away, but it’s always far away—the tic-tac never flies up close to a passenger jet so hundreds of people can look at it in detail. We get rumors that the government has clear high-resolution pictures, but they never get leaked. We get rumors that the government has recovered intact alien aircraft, but it’s always someone who hear
If by 'very unlikely' you think the likelihood is <1% you can get nearly free money by betting against: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t5W87hQF5gKyTofQB/ufo-betting-put-up-or-shut-up
I think the user is still willing to send out a few thousand dollars.
The biggest problem with the argument is that, given our current knowledge about the specific details of extraterrestrial civilizations, the term 'aliens' in P[aliens] does not fulfill the hard-to-vary criterion of a good explanation.
Skeptic: "If it's aliens, why haven't they been trying to contact us"
Post-hoc variation: "Because of the Prime Directive"
Skeptic: "If it's a physical vehicle, why does it not obey the laws of physics"
Post-hoc variation: "Because the aliens have discovered new physics which we don't know about".
etc.. etc..
Any unexplained...
Also "aliens exist" is highly plausible.
"Aliens visit earth in a wide variety of badly hidden spacecraft in a pattern like they are trolling us" is somewhat less plausible.
Other things we might see with aliens.
The obvious (and not by any means new) knock-down argument against aliens is the lack of correlation between increased ubiquity of hi-res cameras everywhere and better res images of UAPs.
If aliens are here, they are definitely screwing with us by remaining covert. I don't know how that figures into the odds given the evidence. It would require incompetent aliens, or else aliens so competent that they could judge how much crappy contact data would make the whole thing seem so unlikely that it gets ignored by most rational people.
Like me.
If they're here but not willing to make contact, they're useless to me as far as I can tell, and I'll go on doing the same things whether or not they exist.
One piece of the logic that I do find interesting is the interaction with AGI x-risk. If aliens were here, they probably wouldn't want us creating a light-cone swallowing misaligned AGI.
The LessWrong Review runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2024. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year.
Hopefully, the review is better than karma at judging enduring value. If we have accurate prediction markets on the review results, maybe we can have better incentives on LessWrong today. Will this post make the top fifty?
If we're talking about highly unexpected phenomena, then I think that this analysis is putting the cart before the horse. Look at it this way: The theory of materialism (in all of its forms) pushes us toward the idea that there is a sharp distinction between the mental and the physical. That is to say, it pushes us toward thinking that what exists objectively exists in space and time from the point of view of all observers and that what doesn't meet those criteria is a hallucination. However, we are already familiar with phenomena that fall in between the ...
At first glance, I thought this was going to be a counter-argument to the "modern AI language models are like aliens who have just landed on Earth" comparison, then I remembered we're in a weirder timeline where people are actually talking about literal aliens as well 🙃
To add more on "what we don't see": if some UAPs are aliens, why have they been on earth for decades, but they haven't done anything yet other than fly around? Why have they never landed (or, if they've landed, why did they only land at secret military bases)? My prior is that if intelligent aliens visited earth, they would do one of two things:
It seems a lot less likely that they'd arrive, fly around for decades, get spotted several times, but only ever in the distance.
What I like about the UFO-stuff is that like early Covid it is a nice benchmark to see which public pundits are thinking clearly and which aren't.
Often if public pundits make a call, it requires detailed knowledge of some kind - which means that I can't really assess it and it's not clear how well the ability to make this call generalises to other issues.
But the UFOs and early Covid are pretty uncomplicated, I think they give a decent signal how calibrated someone is.
(he said cleverly neglecting to state whether aliens are likely or unlikely)
It's not a take that I've thought about deeply, but could the evidence be explained by a technological advancement: the ability to hop between diverging universes?
It would explain why we don't see aliens; they discover the technology, and that empty parallel worlds are closer in terms of energy expenditure.
It could also explain why the interlopers don't bother us much; they are scouting for uninhabited parallel earths with easily-accessible resources, and skipping those with a population. The only ones we see are the ones incompetent or unlucky enoug
My rather marginal view is that both UFO and BigFoot is the same phenomenon which can appear only in the sitiations of "low concentration of human attention". In some sense it is similar to large-scale Schrodinger's cat, which can be in the state of both alive and dead only when unobserved.
This explains why there are many evidence but never conclusive evidence.
I think (give like 30 per cent probability) that the general nature of the UFO phenomenon is that it is anti-epistemic, that it, it actively prevents our ability to get definite knowledge about about it. How exactly this happens is not clear, and there could be several ideas.
Something jumped out at me here. Regardless of the explanation, there's a testable experiment in the works here. We could confirm or falsify this anti-epistemic property.
Setup: find the 'base rate' of UFO sightings, how often do humans and aircraft sensors see them. Then determine how large of an area you need to cover.
Cover half an area sufficiently large with thousands/millions of constantly recording high resolution cameras. Use AI to check the footage for UFOs.
The other half is your control region. Elicit UFO reports in both regions. (you might put the cameras in both regions but not power the ones in the control region so human reporters don't know which region they are in)
Prediction: if UFOs are anti-epistemic, you will get no UFO reports from the region covered by cameras, and you will get a statistically meaningful number (because you chose a large enough collec...
Some suggest there might be alien aircraft on Earth now. The argument goes something like this:
(1) A priori, there’s no reason there shouldn’t be alien aircraft. Earth is 4.54 billion years old, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and within a billion light years of Earth there are something like 5 × 10¹⁴ stars. Most of those stars have planets, and if an alien civilization arose anywhere and built a von Neumann probe, those probes would spread everywhere.
(2) We have tons of observations that would be more likely if there were alien aircraft around than if there weren’t. These include:
(3) So if we agree that:
then don’t we have to conclude that the posterior probability P[aliens | everything] is pretty high?
No.
What I like about this argument
First, I agree the prior probability should be pretty high. Say you just told me:
Then I would agree—the odds that there would be alien aircraft on my planet seem good. It seems like we—or our artificial descendants—might well send aircraft to other planets. So why shouldn’t alien aircraft be here, now?
Second, it takes eyewitness reports seriously. There are a huge number of reports by pilots seeing objects accelerating at insane rates with no obvious wings, control surfaces, or signs of propulsion. It’s a mistake to dismiss these as a product of diseased minds or attention-seeking. There are just too many reports—both civilian and military—sometimes from pilots in different planes at the same time, sometimes invisible to radar and sometimes confirmed by radar from multiple sources. Usually, these people make little effort to draw attention to themselves—we only hear about their observations secondhand. They seem serious and well-intentioned.
(I hesitate to mention this, but I even have family members that report seeing something very strange years ago. I respect their intelligence and I don’t think they have an agenda—they barely talk about it and don’t consider it very important. The story goes that I myself saw it, but I was very young and remember nothing.)
Third, I agree that lots of these observations are very hard to explain. Now, of the 510 reports investigated for the 2022 UAP task force report, more than half had mundane explanations—usually balloons or drones. And some of the leaked videos could plausibly be explained in terms of stuff like rotating glare. But other incidents have apparently been measured by different sensors (e.g. vision, radar) or from multiple locations (e.g. a plane and a ship) simultaneously, and just don’t have a clear conventional explanation.
Fourth, I think this argument correctly rejects some of the other explanations people give for these observations. Some say these are real observations, just coming from human aircraft built in some highly classified (American? Chinese? Russian?) program. For some observations, that’s plausible. But I think it’s extremely unlikely a government has built a tic-tac that can accelerate at 700 gravities with no visible wings or propulsion. I don’t think governments are competent enough to develop technology so many generations ahead of what’s publically known—in this case involving new physics—all while keeping it completely secret. There are no historical examples of anything like this. (The Manhattan Project is probably the closest analogy, but even then many scientists around the world knew such a thing might be possible.)
Or, some people say that it’s disinformation—all the reports and videos are fake, and the US government is putting them out to confuse adversaries into thinking that it must be a classified program, and therefore the US must have secret alien-level technology. That’s… quite a theory. I mean, what’s the incentive? Does China worry about the US sending in the tic-tacs when they make plans to invade Taiwan? And why the reports in other countries around the world? It would be a massive conspiracy for a tiny benefit.
And finally, I’m a Bayesian extremist. If I do a calculation and I get weird results, then I’ll check my calculations. But ultimately, I’ll accept the results.
For simplicity, let’s say the prior probability that there could be alien aircraft is 50%, i.e.
P[aliens] = P[no-aliens] = 0.5.
And let’s say that the probability that multiple civilian pilots would all report seeing a tic-tac at the same time is nine times higher with aliens than without them, i.e.
P[tic-tac | aliens] = 0.09
P[tic-tac | no-aliens] = 0.01
Then an easy calculation gives that, conditioning on the tic-tac report, there's a 90% chance of aliens, i.e.
P[aliens | tic-tac] = 0.90
I accept all that. But I still think aliens are very unlikely.
Is Bigfoot fucking with us?
If you’re not from North America, you may not be aware of Bigfoot—this big furry human-ish guy said to roam around in forests:
Now, I don’t want to compare believing in alien aircraft to believing in Bigfoot. You might argue that Bigfoot is less plausible, a priori. But regardless of that, the evidence for Bigfoot isn’t close to the evidence we have for weird stuff in the sky.
Never mind that. All I want to talk about is: Up until the 1990s or so, a lot of people seemed to take Bigfoot seriously. But today, almost no one does. Why?
Has society become more rational? Has Bigfoot just fallen out of fashion? Maybe, a little, but I don’t think that’s why.
No, the answer is simple: Today, there are cameras everywhere. Back in the 1960s, you might take some random grainy film footage kind of seriously, because not that many people were taking movies in the deep woods. But today? There are people hiking in the woods with cameras everywhere and no one has ever recorded a close-up video of Bigfoot.
If Bigfoot exists, then he’s monitoring our technological development and now hiding away more carefully, so we never get definitive proof. (He still makes time for lots of people who are incapable of taking their phones out of their pockets.) That seems unlikely, right?
So it’s not that we got evidence against Bigfoot. It’s that the lack of incontrovertible evidence has become damning.
Against alien aircraft
So what’s wrong with our initial argument?
First of all, lots of the old observations that seem to suggest alien aircraft turned out to be wrong. We now know that Roswell was a government coverup—but of high-altitude balloons with microphones to pick up Soviet atomic bomb tests, not aliens. Half of reports end up being shown to be weather balloons.
Beyond that, many other reports probably have mundane explanations we just haven’t found. The 2022 UAP task force attributed 6 of 510 reports to “clutter” like birds, weather events, or—somehow—plastic bags. But how good are our records for birds or plastic bags? It sure seems like if clutter caused a report, we have low odds of being able to attribute it to clutter. So surely clutter explains some of the other reports, too.
Second, all these observations are not independent. If a sensor glitch can happen in one place, it can happen in other places. If some natural weather phenomena can look like physics-defying tic-tac once, it can do that again. Beyond some level, the sheer number of reports just doesn’t add that much additional evidence.
Finally, and most importantly, you have to condition not just on what we see, but what we don’t see. We get grainy videos of some weird thing in the distance, but never close-up HD video. Pilots report seeing something flying far away, but it’s always far away—the tic-tac never flies up close to a passenger jet so hundreds of people can look at it in detail. We get rumors that the government has clear high-resolution pictures, but they never get leaked. We get rumors that the government has recovered intact alien aircraft, but it’s always someone who heard someone else talking about it—we never have a whistleblower who actually analyzed the aircraft and can tell us what they’re made out of. There’s never a local government—anywhere in the world—that captures an aircraft and posts photos online.
Across every dimension in which we could get evidence of aircraft, we see “everything that’s possible to see if alien aircraft didn’t exist”, but never more. There are many opportunities for a smoking gun, but we never get one.
If you want to calculate the probabilities correctly, you have to condition not just on the observations, but also on the ungodly number of observations that we don’t have—on the “billions of guns that failed to smoke”.
If alien aircraft were on Earth, they would need to be carefully calibrated to give us grainy distant glimpses (in every possible way) but never more. If alien aircraft are here, they’re screwing with us.