Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#31

Post by comrade_ogilvy »

sillysaurus wrote: post #12
ignostic wrote: post #2

It's true that once something was able to reach us, they'd probably have very little interest in conquering us, stealing our resources, or anything else "movie aliens" do. Where I disagree is that such beings wouldn't be interested in us. Start with us. Despite knowing basically where we came from, what our ancestors looked like, and how their DNA would look, we're still fascinated to find links and steps along the w…

You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us. Curiosity isn't necessarily a property of life. An example: cats don't appear to experience remorse, yet dogs do. One could envision the same for curiosity. One motivation for a space program is when a civilization realizes their resources will be gone in a matter of centuries.

To develop advanced technology without curiosity would be rather implausible.

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#32

Post by platz »

pjscott wrote: post #29
sillysaurus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us. Curiosity isn't necessarily a property of life. An example: cats don't appear to experience remorse, yet dogs do. One could envision the same for curiosity. One motivation for a space program is when a civilization realizes their resources will be gone in a matter of centuries.

One of the classic examples is the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment. A paperclip maximizer is a superintelligent AI whose sole goal is to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe. Such a being is curious to the extent that learning more about the universe increases the expected number of paperclips in its future light-cone. A paperclip maximizer is indifferent to your existence, but thoroughly believes…

The Paperclip Maximizer: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? I sense the approach of the p-zombie.

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#33

Post by comrade_ogilvy »

pjscott wrote: post #29
sillysaurus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us. Curiosity isn't necessarily a property of life. An example: cats don't appear to experience remorse, yet dogs do. One could envision the same for curiosity. One motivation for a space program is when a civilization realizes their resources will be gone in a matter of centuries.

One of the classic examples is the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment. A paperclip maximizer is a superintelligent AI whose sole goal is to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe. Such a being is curious to the extent that learning more about the universe increases the expected number of paperclips in its future light-cone. A paperclip maximizer is indifferent to your existence, but thoroughly believes…

Obviously the Paperclip Maximizer would be supplanted by the Maximizer Maximizer, which only sees value in copies of itself. The Maximizer Maximizer that stumbles onto the mental trait "curiosity" will eventually crush all other variants of Maximizer. Once it develops the advanced technologies of space travel, it discovers that seizing faraway planets is possible but going through all that trouble is not a net positive towards self-actualization as a Maximizer Maximizer Maximizer.

Thus TFA is correct.

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#35

Post by pjscott »

comrade_ogilvy wrote: post #33
pjscott wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the classic examples is the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment. A paperclip maximizer is a superintelligent AI whose sole goal is to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe. Such a being is curious to the extent that learning more about the universe increases the expected number of paperclips in its future light-cone. A paperclip maximizer is indifferent to your existence, but thoroughly believes…

Obviously the Paperclip Maximizer would be supplanted by the Maximizer Maximizer, which only sees value in copies of itself. The Maximizer Maximizer that stumbles onto the mental trait "curiosity" will eventually crush all other variants of Maximizer. Once it develops the advanced technologies of space travel, it discovers that seizing faraway planets is possible but going through all that trouble is not a net positi…

Obviously the Maximizer Maximizer is just another potential foe for the Paperclip Maximizer to seek out and crush in its infancy. (Sound brutal? It isn't; if you pull it off right, not a single paperclip will be harmed.)

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#36

Post by [deleted] »

sillysaurus wrote: post #12
ignostic wrote: post #2

It's true that once something was able to reach us, they'd probably have very little interest in conquering us, stealing our resources, or anything else "movie aliens" do. Where I disagree is that such beings wouldn't be interested in us. Start with us. Despite knowing basically where we came from, what our ancestors looked like, and how their DNA would look, we're still fascinated to find links and steps along the w…

You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us. Curiosity isn't necessarily a property of life. An example: cats don't appear to experience remorse, yet dogs do. One could envision the same for curiosity. One motivation for a space program is when a civilization realizes their resources will be gone in a matter of centuries.

[deleted]

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#37

Post by pjscott »

platz wrote: post #32
pjscott wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the classic examples is the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment. A paperclip maximizer is a superintelligent AI whose sole goal is to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe. Such a being is curious to the extent that learning more about the universe increases the expected number of paperclips in its future light-cone. A paperclip maximizer is indifferent to your existence, but thoroughly believes…

The Paperclip Maximizer: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? I sense the approach of the p-zombie.

I'm not sure what you mean by "conceivable" and "metaphysically possible", and I don't see a resemblance to p-zombies. Could you elaborate?

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#38

Post by mynameishere »

dicroce wrote: post #7

If there are or were aliens, why have we not heard them? Forget visits, why haven't we heard a peep? From anywhere? The universe is 13.77 billion years old. It took planet earth 4.54 billion years to evolve a species capable of emitting significant electromagnetic radiation. I'm starting to be pretty convinced that we are the first advanced species, and perhaps life is a lot more rare than we imagine.

This is why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Anyway, if you actually wanted to seek other planets, you would need a HAL-style computer, sperm and eggs on ice, and an artificial womb. Then, life could realistically spend thousands and thousands of years traveling in space. If this is even possible then I suspect one or another lifeform would have done it by now. Since they apparently haven't, I doubt there's much out there. Fermi's paradox really.

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#39

Post by coldtea »

What's this BS premise about them being "1,000 times smarter than us"?

For one, we're not 1000 times smarter than people 2000 years ago. Just more tech savvy and able to play with more abstract / mathematical patterns (which helps with IQ scores). As far as our general thinking, philosophy and emotional intelligence goes we are about as smart as those "ancients". Or even worse. And if there's any doubt that that holds in aggregate, it sure holds in isolated cases. Do you believe the average American is smarter than, say, Euclides or Aristotle? Or Newton, Da Vinci, etc?

Second, what about aliens that are in more or less a similar state as us? They might live 10-20-100 light years away, have a similar level of technology, etc. We might be able to meet them if we or them attempt a mission, or talk to them over radio waves.

And in that case, nothing of all those ("we're insects to them") etc, will hold.

Re: Why We'll Never Meet Aliens

#40

Post by coldtea »

sillysaurus wrote: post #12
ignostic wrote: post #2

It's true that once something was able to reach us, they'd probably have very little interest in conquering us, stealing our resources, or anything else "movie aliens" do. Where I disagree is that such beings wouldn't be interested in us. Start with us. Despite knowing basically where we came from, what our ancestors looked like, and how their DNA would look, we're still fascinated to find links and steps along the w…

You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us. Curiosity isn't necessarily a property of life. An example: cats don't appear to experience remorse, yet dogs do. One could envision the same for curiosity. One motivation for a space program is when a civilization realizes their resources will be gone in a matter of centuries.

>You've fallen into a trap: anthropomorphizing aliens. Aliens aren't necessarily anything like us.

Yes, we're talking about aliens that ARE like us here. Not some alien bacteria.

As far as evolution is concerned, it should work pretty much the same in any planet, and produce more or less similar results.

Post reply on HN