Unless what we believe about evolution is wrong, or we are very very lucky, we should assume there are already a large number of unfriendly AIs in the universe, and probably in our galaxy.
Doesn’t this depend on the likelihood/prevalence of intelligent life? For all we know, we might be the only sentient species out there. Also, even if there are a lot o unfriendly AIs out there, a friendly one would still vastly improve our fate, whether by fighting off the unfriendly ones, or reaching an agreement with them to mutual benefit, or rescue simulations. The greater age of the alien ones might give them a massive advantage, but that depends on whether FOOM will ever run into diminishing returns. If it does, then the difference between, say, a 500,000 year old AI and a 2 million year old AI may not be much.
None of this should be construed as supporting the arguments in “Put all your eggs in one basket”.
Also, even if there are a lot o unfriendly AIs out there, a friendly one would still vastly improve our fate, whether by fighting off the unfriendly ones, or reaching an agreement with them to mutual benefit, or rescue simulations.
One potential option might be to put us through quantum suicide—upload everyone into static storage, then let them out only in the branches where the UFAI is defeated. Depending on their values and rationality, both AIs could do the same thing in order to each have a universe to themselves without fighting. That could doom other sentients in the UFAI’s branch, though, so it might not be the best option even if it would work.
Doesn’t this depend on the likelihood/prevalence of intelligent life? For all we know, we might be the only sentient species out there.
For the record, that’s Michael Anissimov’s position (see in particular the last paragraph).
Also, even if there are a lot o unfriendly AIs out there, a friendly one would still vastly improve our fate, whether by fighting off the unfriendly ones, or reaching an agreement with them to mutual benefit, or rescue simulations.
So far as I understand “rescue simulations” in this context, I’d classify them as a particular detail of “a short happy life”.
The greater age of the alien ones might give them a massive advantage, but that depends on whether FOOM will ever run into diminishing returns. If it does, then the difference between, say, a 500,000 year old AI and a 2 million year old AI may not be much.
I wouldn’t expect there to ever be diminishing returns from acquiring more matter and energy.
We might be the only sentient species in the galaxy. This is not that improbable—since we know we are here and we don’t see any aliens.
Either potential intelligent agents in the galaxy are ahead of us (where are they?), or they are behind us (yay, we are first!), or they emerged at around the same time as us (not terribly likely).
From that, either colonising the galaxy is harder than it looks—or, we’re first.
Most intelligent species that evolve in a galaxy will be the first ones (on the assumption that intelligent agents typically conquer the galaxy they are in quickly, thereby suppressing the evolution of subsequent intelligent species).
So, being first would be ordinary, mundane, commonplace.
That assumes that travel between galaxies is extremely difficult. Once a species has control over an entire galaxy, why wouldn’t it then spread to other galaxies? Sure, it would be toughter than interstellar colonization, but the same basic problems apply.
Moreover, we don’t see any largescale stellar engineering in other galaxies. Finding the signs of such would be much tougher in other galaxies rather than our own, but once a galaxy is under a species complete control, it is hard to see why they wouldn’t go about modifying stars on a large scale. The notion that they would both not spread to other galaxies and wouldn’t substantially modify their own is implausible.
Replace ‘first in their galaxy’ with ‘first in their own past light-cone’ and you not only remove the assumption that travel between galaxies is difficult, but also explain the fact that we haven’t observed any. If we assume they travel at near-light speeds and consume anything they can reach then any point from which they could be observed has already been consumed.
I’d be very interested in references for them if you could find them. As far as I’m aware, there’s been discussion about how to look for signs of engineering. There have been a handful of things that at first looked artificial and were then explained (pulsars being the most obvious example).
If intergalactic travel is easy then the model of the first intelligent species in each galaxy taking over that galaxy fails to explain why we don’t encounter other species. We should still expect species to spread far out.
I don’t think his idea actually relies on intergalactic travel being difficult, just the way he stated it. If, say, intergalactic travel is easy, but not intercluster, then the idea could still apply, just at the galactic cluster level rather than at the galaxy level.
Either they would have arrived already (and taken over the galaxy, suppressing us in the process) - or they have yet to arrive. The chances of them initially showing up around about now are going to be pretty small.
They apparently haven’t arrived here already—unless they seeded us originally—else where are they? So, if they are out there, they have yet to arrive.
I don’t really see how all this makes much difference to the original argument.
The point of that argument was that seeing yourself alone in the galaxy with no aliens around is only to be expected—if the first intelligences rapidly expand and suppress the subsequent development of other intelligent life. So, being first is not so much of a miracle.
Doesn’t this depend on the likelihood/prevalence of intelligent life? For all we know, we might be the only sentient species out there. Also, even if there are a lot o unfriendly AIs out there, a friendly one would still vastly improve our fate, whether by fighting off the unfriendly ones, or reaching an agreement with them to mutual benefit, or rescue simulations. The greater age of the alien ones might give them a massive advantage, but that depends on whether FOOM will ever run into diminishing returns. If it does, then the difference between, say, a 500,000 year old AI and a 2 million year old AI may not be much.
None of this should be construed as supporting the arguments in “Put all your eggs in one basket”.
One potential option might be to put us through quantum suicide—upload everyone into static storage, then let them out only in the branches where the UFAI is defeated. Depending on their values and rationality, both AIs could do the same thing in order to each have a universe to themselves without fighting. That could doom other sentients in the UFAI’s branch, though, so it might not be the best option even if it would work.
For the record, that’s Michael Anissimov’s position (see in particular the last paragraph).
So far as I understand “rescue simulations” in this context, I’d classify them as a particular detail of “a short happy life”.
I wouldn’t expect there to ever be diminishing returns from acquiring more matter and energy.
I meant for that to fall under “what we believe about evolution [and the origin of life, which is technically not the same thing] is wrong”.
We might be the only sentient species in the galaxy. This is not that improbable—since we know we are here and we don’t see any aliens.
Either potential intelligent agents in the galaxy are ahead of us (where are they?), or they are behind us (yay, we are first!), or they emerged at around the same time as us (not terribly likely).
From that, either colonising the galaxy is harder than it looks—or, we’re first.
Harder, or less desirable. Yes; and isn’t it more likely the former, than that we are (literally) astronomically lucky?
It isn’t lucky to be the first in a galaxy.
Most intelligent species that evolve in a galaxy will be the first ones (on the assumption that intelligent agents typically conquer the galaxy they are in quickly, thereby suppressing the evolution of subsequent intelligent species).
So, being first would be ordinary, mundane, commonplace.
...and being second would be rare and unlucky.
That assumes that travel between galaxies is extremely difficult. Once a species has control over an entire galaxy, why wouldn’t it then spread to other galaxies? Sure, it would be toughter than interstellar colonization, but the same basic problems apply.
Moreover, we don’t see any largescale stellar engineering in other galaxies. Finding the signs of such would be much tougher in other galaxies rather than our own, but once a galaxy is under a species complete control, it is hard to see why they wouldn’t go about modifying stars on a large scale. The notion that they would both not spread to other galaxies and wouldn’t substantially modify their own is implausible.
Replace ‘first in their galaxy’ with ‘first in their own past light-cone’ and you not only remove the assumption that travel between galaxies is difficult, but also explain the fact that we haven’t observed any. If we assume they travel at near-light speeds and consume anything they can reach then any point from which they could be observed has already been consumed.
Some people do. There are quite a few serious-looking papers on that topic—though I don’t have them handy.
I’d be very interested in references for them if you could find them. As far as I’m aware, there’s been discussion about how to look for signs of engineering. There have been a handful of things that at first looked artificial and were then explained (pulsars being the most obvious example).
Hmm—I can’t see where I was assuming that.
If intergalactic travel is easy then the model of the first intelligent species in each galaxy taking over that galaxy fails to explain why we don’t encounter other species. We should still expect species to spread far out.
I don’t think his idea actually relies on intergalactic travel being difficult, just the way he stated it. If, say, intergalactic travel is easy, but not intercluster, then the idea could still apply, just at the galactic cluster level rather than at the galaxy level.
Either they would have arrived already (and taken over the galaxy, suppressing us in the process) - or they have yet to arrive. The chances of them initially showing up around about now are going to be pretty small.
They apparently haven’t arrived here already—unless they seeded us originally—else where are they? So, if they are out there, they have yet to arrive.
I don’t really see how all this makes much difference to the original argument.
The point of that argument was that seeing yourself alone in the galaxy with no aliens around is only to be expected—if the first intelligences rapidly expand and suppress the subsequent development of other intelligent life. So, being first is not so much of a miracle.