Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

just-a-dreamer- t1_j95rhe1 wrote

There are no aliens, we would have seen their presence in the universe by now. Billions of Galaxies and no sign yet. Life on earth is unique.

Out of chemistry and physics came biology. Evolution is moving faster and faster with AI being the endgame.

Once AI is developed to the point of the Singularity, we could create a world of abundance for all.

The end of capitalism, plenty for all, resources to create anything we want including longevity.


SIGINT_SANTA t1_j966hxh wrote

It seems very optimistic to assume AI will mean the end of capitalism or abundance for all.

The most likely outcome seems to be it destroys us in pursuit of some objective we gave it. If you don’t think that’s a possibility I suggest you read what some of the people working on AI alignment have written.

But if by some absolute miracle that doesn’t happen, AI is going to be greatest tool of power concentration we’ve ever created. Whoever controls powerful AI would basically run the world. The default outcome is that some large company or government will have their hands on the levers.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j968uvg wrote

Humans have the tools to destroy the world since around 1960. AI adds nothing new to the threat of anahilation.

A self improving AI has the capabilities to bring about an age of abundance for humanity. Or wipe out all humans. Both will be the end of capitalism, which is good, one way or another.

In this inter-connected world, even the rich can't contain AI forever, the technology will spread eventually across the globe I think. Somebody somewhere will push AI development further for some reason of self interest.

Even the rich are not that united, there are so many layers of billionaires fighting each other. For example, the Saudi aristocracy is insanely rich as a group, but internally 1.000 male princes fight for power in their respective game of thrones.


SIGINT_SANTA t1_j96eukp wrote

The scale of AIs threat of annihilation is much higher than that of nuclear weapons. And the incentives to improve AI are much stronger than the incentive to make more dangerous nuclear weapons. And the challenge of preventing AI proliferation is much harder than the challenge of preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I also think it’s unlikely that a nuclear war would actually cause human extinction. It would certainly kill a ton of people (perhaps almost all). But even in the worst case scenarios it seems very likely that a few million would survive in New Zealand or some other remote location.

And do you really hate capitalism so much that you would kill your family and friends to end it? Really?


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96g8t6 wrote

Capitalism dies in the age of abundance, for trading labor for goods and services would become pointless. That is a goal worth of any risk, including extinction.

Besides, what are we left with without AI progress? The climate is collapsing slowly and international conflict is coming back. This time with nuclear arsenals. We were 1.5 billion in 1900, now we are at 8 billion in 2023.

Too many people competing for a smaller and smaller pool of available resources.

We either grow in technology or we die, that is our only path forward. If we could eradicate capitalism along the path, humanity could vote on a shared destiny how we want the world to look like for future generations to come.


SIGINT_SANTA t1_j9c262c wrote

Without AI we’re left with the prospect of increasing lifespan and welfare, improving medicine, human genetic engineering, colonization of the solar system and galaxy, new knowledge, and a few trillion years of starlight left before the universe goes dark.

That sounds pretty damn good to me.

I think your gloomy attitude about climate change is also misplaced. In nearly all developed countries, carbon emissions per capita are flat or falling.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j9c52jj wrote

Looks like it doesn't matter what I want, for progress is inevitable.

The big tech companies pushing AI not out of principles, but to increase shareholder value. As do countless smaller companies and open source projects. Progress is a side effect of greed after all.

The popular stable diffusion technology is now down to 100.000-300.000 Dollars in costs thanks to optimization. It used to costs tens of millions of Dollar. It is within the price range of a startup and spreads.

Once AI models are trained one time in earnest, they tend to get small enough to make the rounds within the ecosystem of startups and open source projects spreading technological progress.

And there is the military and government agencies. They tend to be more controlling, but technology developed once also finds the way out of their hands due to bribes. They are corrupt after all.

All in all, AI progress is accellerating fast. The entire AI ecosystem is moving right now with money being poured in.

As important, young talent is flocking to the field full speed, money is usefull but passion is even more important.


SIGINT_SANTA t1_j9c7czb wrote

Yes, I think you’re right. That’s why we’re fucked.


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96cxni wrote

You do recognize that exo planets are detected by the rotation of their stars, not by direct observation, and that the closest star is 4.25 light years away? How in the universe could we say if there are aliens or not? Especially considering that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy and that there are likely 125 billion other galaxies.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96eegh wrote

By the law of exponential growth.

Human life dates back 5 billion years. We made ourselves known to the galaxy just 65 years ago with the atomic bomb. 100 years ago with faint radio signals.

Within 1.000 years we will inhabitate every planet in the sol system and our existence is seen like a beacon. In 1 million years we could have settled half the galaxy.

Any alien civilization that is just 1 million years ahead of us in evolution would have been detected by us by now. 1 million out of 5 billion years in not that much margin.


meshtron t1_j96guha wrote

>Human life dates back 5 billion years

Wow, weird ignorance flex there - but you do you boo


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96ic24 wrote

Earliest known life forms

The earliest time for the origin of life on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years ago.

Wrong guess but not that much off.


meshtron t1_j96jqcq wrote

I hope you wear a helmet for your own safety.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96jz3j wrote

Suppose you see yourself totally different from a tree while your DNA matches 50% with plant life.


meshtron t1_j96kna3 wrote

I don't spend much time considering how much my DNA matches with plants, but I'd say you're closer to a tree intellectually than I am. So congrats on that


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96ldw1 wrote

You should read books about biology then. Didn't pay much attention in school it seems.


meshtron t1_j96lu9d wrote

...says the one who started this with a declaration that human life is older than the earth AS SUPPORT FOR another assertion that aliens can't exist. Yep, I definitely need more schooling to reach your level.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96nosf wrote

Everybody can be 1 billion years wrong in counting. It happens.


meshtron t1_j96ojvs wrote

You weren't '1 billion years wrong," you were 5 billion years wrong. On a guess of 5 billion years. Discuss with your tree people, they will explain it to you better than I can due to my previously established faulty schooling.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96p1a5 wrote

Allright, life on earth, where human life is nothing more than an offshot is probably 3.8 billion years old.

Are you happy now.


meshtron t1_j96q8lm wrote

I've been happy the whole time - but you started off wrong, doubled-down on your wrongness, and are continuing to frolic in the pool of your wrongness. No skin offa my nose - just funny to read.

I would offer this small suggestion (that you will completely ignore): learn to shape your language appropriately to your level of knowledge of any given topic. You've made it readily apparent here you have absolutely no idea about any of the things you're discussing or making assertions about here. That is completely fine; that is how we learn and explore. But doing so using your false assertions as a foundation for equally false arguments is stopping you from actually learning anything. It falls well into the old idiom "sometimes it's better to not speak and appear a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Learn and explore, but (even on the internet) don't expect to meaningfully steer discussion without understanding at least SOME of the context and subject matter. Learn to ask good questions, learn to receive and internalize good answers, learn to research things that you're curious about, and learn not to just perpetually double-down on your own flawed arguments - your life, should you succeed at this - will be better for it.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96r8nw wrote

I know that I know little. Therefore, when I see that I declared a wrong number, I look it up on Wikipedia and stand corrected.

My doubts about alien life also comes from recollections of podcasts I enjoyed from Ray Kurzweil and Ben Goertzel. Their arguments concerning alien life make sense to me.


meshtron t1_j973ru7 wrote

Fair enough I guess. But the numbers were far from the only problem with your argument(s). Trying to roll back bits and pieces of your statement after the fact to "shift" it closer to being true is not a very efficient or credible way to communicate, AND it prevents you from actually learning the material. You should separate "I know" and "I think" from "I heard" and, in your case, "I think I heard."


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96l2n6 wrote

🤦‍♂️ so anyway. I was just saying that we don't know if there are aliens or not, but you are now half tree and shooting dna to foreign stars. Can you tell me some of your other ideas? I'm bored.


meshtron t1_j96ncc7 wrote

(Assume this was directed at our friend who's celebrating the 60% of his DNA that matches a banana, but it's something I enjoy thinking about as well)

You're right that the physical distances involved mean it's impossible to rule out alien consciousness elsewhere in the universe. But despite what u/just-a-dreamer- seems to understand, you ALSO have to consider how infinitesimally small human existence is in time compared to the universe.

VERY generously, we've had the ability to receive any wavelength of signal arriving at earth from outside our solar system for maybe 200 years. Our planet has existed for less than 1/3 the life of the universe. It's entirely possible that other civilizations evolved, flourished, then died out (including their plante and even solar system) long before Earth ever existed, and likely that happened before we were able to even know the signal got to us.

We're still at the very beginning of trying to detect life beyond our planet, much less our solar system (and really not at all beyond our galaxy). The real question is whether humanity survives intact long enough to continue this search. I'd wager the chances of that happening are far less than the chances that intelligent life exists in the universe outside Earth right now.


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96nvn6 wrote

Very eloquent! Hey, if you like thinking about this, have you ever read the Issac Asimov "Foundation" series? u/just-a-dreamer might enjoy it as well. I also like to wonder about these questions and Foundation was just awesome!


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96ngb7 wrote

Yes, from the time we branched away from trees till our miserables present day bodies we haven't detected any alien activity.

And that is for a wide universe. For there probably is nothing out there to detect. Or very far away beyound any usefull interaction.


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96oj6k wrote

So you acknowledge that there very well could be alien life, beyond a distance at which we could interact with or detect it? Thanks, I think we agree now.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96pqpv wrote

There could be, but way beyond our reach. Who knows how big the universe actually is.

In a practical sense alien existence won't matter. If we didn't detect anything near or close to our own galaxy by now, there is nothing within our reach.


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96qdvb wrote

If you understand how, "There could be," is different from "There are no," then my work here is done. Check out "Foundation," I can tell you would like it!


theedgeofthefreud t1_j96g3bs wrote

Even if an alien civilization did inhabit all of its own solar system, we would be currently unable to detect them. We can't actually observe any of the world's they would inhabit. Also, what makes you think that we would inhabit half the galaxy? A quick Google search informs me that currently a trip to proxima centauri would take 80,000 years. 80,000 years is a long time. Consider how humans lived 80,000 years ago, and try to envision how they will live 80,000 years in the future. It's pretty close minded to be so sure that there is nothing alive in such a vast place as this universe. Perhaps you've seen that picture describing the reach of our radio transmissions?


just-a-dreamer- t1_j96hyta wrote

We will settle the galaxy for the same reason we ventured out of Africa. It is who we are. For the same reason the Greeks build city states at every location their ships could reach.

80.000 years, if it even takes that long with technology to come, is not that much.

Automated machines can prepare new star systems for settlements. While humans might be born out of stored DNA upon arrival. Or whatever we will look like at that point in time.

An alien civilization that follows the laws of evolution would have been detected by us already, at least in our galaxy. 1 million years is little in cosmic time, but gigantic in exponential growth what we will accomplish.