Already downvoted enough, so I won’t pile on, but I’ll explain why I don’t find this a valuable post.
So, the interesting question is, what if we’re not the first AI-capable civilization on Earth?
Well, no. That’s not an interesting question. Whether or not we’re not the first such civilization, we STILL experience everything exactly the same. Reality is truth. We can’t change the past and see what’s different. There’s no “what if” that makes sense for that topic.
You MIGHT ask “what are we failing to focus on that could give evidence for or against this hypothesis?” Then go measure that and you have something to improve your modeling. You MIGHT ask “what puzzles are present today that this possibility explains”, but I suspect you’ll mostly have pretty tenuous just-so stories.
Really, you should be asking (or better yet, stating, after you’ve spent the time studying something your intuition says is worthwhile, but most people disagree) whether there are artifacts or effects actually existent which help determine whether it’s true, and what additional experiments or observations we could make.
But the topic seems to be worth a serious consideration
You don’t give any reasons to give it serious consideration. There are BILLIONS of ideas that your general points apply to—why this one?
Note: I see from your comments that you’re mentioning Ancient Greece and talking about “brief sparkles of civilization”. That feels like a significant motte-and-bailey switch in a post about “AI-capable civilizations”. It’s quite possible that such local and brief civilizations have happened and collapsed multiple times. I would still ask “so what” before “what if”.
Well, no. That’s not an interesting question. Whether or not we’re not the first such civilization, we STILL experience everything exactly the same. Reality is truth. We can’t change the past and see what’s different. There’s no “what if” that makes sense for that topic.
Perhaps my choice of the phrasing was sub-optimal (I’m a non-native English speaker). The intent of this question-post is to identity interesting corollaries of the hypothesis (including testable predictions).
You don’t give any reasons to give it serious consideration.
The core justification for this hypothesis is that it’s basically SETI, but for civilizations in the Earth’s past instead of civilizations in the outer space. And many people in the community seem to find SETI worth a serious consideration.
It’s quite possible that such local and brief civilizations have happened and collapsed multiple times. I would still ask “so what” before “what if”.
Regarding “so what”, I don’t know yet (a purpose of this question-post is to explore this kind of stuff). So far I can see two interesting corollaries:
we can apply something like the Drake equitation or “grabby aliens” ideas, but to the hypothetical previous civilizations of the Earth. This could give us some insight about our own future
the possibility of the ancient genocidal AGIs still roaming around (or lying dormant in some ruins) - seems important.
Already downvoted enough, so I won’t pile on, but I’ll explain why I don’t find this a valuable post.
Well, no. That’s not an interesting question. Whether or not we’re not the first such civilization, we STILL experience everything exactly the same. Reality is truth. We can’t change the past and see what’s different. There’s no “what if” that makes sense for that topic.
You MIGHT ask “what are we failing to focus on that could give evidence for or against this hypothesis?” Then go measure that and you have something to improve your modeling. You MIGHT ask “what puzzles are present today that this possibility explains”, but I suspect you’ll mostly have pretty tenuous just-so stories.
Really, you should be asking (or better yet, stating, after you’ve spent the time studying something your intuition says is worthwhile, but most people disagree) whether there are artifacts or effects actually existent which help determine whether it’s true, and what additional experiments or observations we could make.
You don’t give any reasons to give it serious consideration. There are BILLIONS of ideas that your general points apply to—why this one?
Note: I see from your comments that you’re mentioning Ancient Greece and talking about “brief sparkles of civilization”. That feels like a significant motte-and-bailey switch in a post about “AI-capable civilizations”. It’s quite possible that such local and brief civilizations have happened and collapsed multiple times. I would still ask “so what” before “what if”.
Perhaps my choice of the phrasing was sub-optimal (I’m a non-native English speaker). The intent of this question-post is to identity interesting corollaries of the hypothesis (including testable predictions).
The core justification for this hypothesis is that it’s basically SETI, but for civilizations in the Earth’s past instead of civilizations in the outer space. And many people in the community seem to find SETI worth a serious consideration.
Regarding “so what”, I don’t know yet (a purpose of this question-post is to explore this kind of stuff). So far I can see two interesting corollaries:
we can apply something like the Drake equitation or “grabby aliens” ideas, but to the hypothetical previous civilizations of the Earth. This could give us some insight about our own future
the possibility of the ancient genocidal AGIs still roaming around (or lying dormant in some ruins) - seems important.