Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET • Hacker News Board

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#211

Post by JulianMorrison » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

Pigo wrote: post #106

agentgt wrote: post #99

One of my favorite topics is the Fermi Paradox and consequently the Great Filter (which someone already discussed). One of my favorite explanations is that there are other ET out there but they are two engrossed with their own entertainment to "give a fuck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#They_tend_to_iso... ). I find it amusing and ironic while also seriously consider it a possibility. From wikipedia:…

That feels like too much assumption to me. The scenario described well by Michio Kaku is the only one that seems probable to me. "Lets say we have an ant hill in the middle of the forest. And right next to the ant hill, they're building a ten-lane super-highway. And the question is 'Would the ants be able to understand what a ten-lane super-highway is? Would the ants be able to understand the technology and the inten…

What's odd and strange is how many ten-lane superhighways we don't see. Because while the highway may just be a "infinite stone plain of death" to an ant, it's there. But you look up in the sky and you don't see stars reduced to heat-radiating Dyson shells, or towed around by Shkadov thrusters. And you really ought to, because any civilization before us should by any reasonable dice roll, be millions of years ahead of us.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#212

Post by sumitviii » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 8:53 PM UTC

sixQuarks wrote: post #125

Pigo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like too much assumption to me. The scenario described well by Michio Kaku is the only one that seems probable to me. "Lets say we have an ant hill in the middle of the forest. And right next to the ant hill, they're building a ten-lane super-highway. And the question is 'Would the ants be able to understand what a ten-lane super-highway is? Would the ants be able to understand the technology and the inten…

Elon Musk disagrees with that statement. He believes once intelligence gets beyond a certain threshold (which humans have), there are no such things that are beyond understanding. Most people don't know how to write complex math equations, but that doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is.

I was going to make logingone's argument but here's a better one:

All maths done till ~1600 AD could have been done in 50 years, if you see it from perspective of a civilization which has a stable existence. And forgetting all abstractions, stability of surrounding civilizations is basically a random phenomenon.

And I'm sure maths done in physics departments is beyond understanding of 80% people outside it, let alone any civilization which started 400 years before us.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#213

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #201

unclebucknasty wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume you'll agree that we'll still be able to observe what it does do and understand that it's doing it No. To make that leap, I must assume the conclusion. I cannot know that I'll be able to observe what it does, because I don't know what it will do (or whether I can even perceive the dimension in which it does it for that matter). Secondly, the word "understand" is subjective. I assume that Musk meant the wor…

I had a really long reply written, but before posting I went to try and find the source of the Elon Musk paraphrased belief, and I can't find it. I don't know where sixQuarks got it from, but without knowing what the source is, it's hard to second-guess what Elon Musk was actually trying to say (or whether he even said it at all). That said, ignoring the Elon Musk bit, even if a superintelligent A.I. figures out how…

We may be talking past each other here and I'm not quite sure how to formulate my thoughts more clearly, but I'll try.

>surely there's plenty of work it will do that fits within the bounds of the physics we know

Simply to say some work would itself be a huge assumption, but plenty? That assumes far too much about our current state of knowledge, and it places artificial limitations on the capacity of a super-intelligence.

The flaw in your thinking is your very reliance on our own knowledge as your frame of reference. You're extrapolating from that because you can't imagine anything else. But, that's the point: we don't know what we don't know (or what a super-intelligence might know).

EDIT: I could attempt to use hypothetical scenarios here to convey how your assumptions might be wrong (e.g. what if this intelligence could jump dimensions such that our laws of physics no longer hold?). However, to do that would be to commit the same error that you're committing: it extrapolates back from our own limited language and understanding. By definition, if we can explain it, then it doesn't meet the test of the type of intelligence that I'm referencing./EDIT

Your statement is also a pretty big tell that you're working from an assumption of only marginally increased intelligence, which is where I think our disconnect really enters. To appreciate the degree of intelligence I'm referencing, see [1].

It's long, but a good read in its own right. Specifically regarding this discussion, towards the middle of the page there are two graphs, labeled "Our Distorted View of Intelligence" and "Reality" which might help illustrate the scale of what I'm trying to communicate. Here also is an attendant quote:

>In our world, smart means a 130 IQ and stupid means an 85 IQ—we don’t have a word for an IQ of 12,952

See what I mean? When intelligence reaches such a scale beyond our own, it destroys key assumptions. The idea that we can comprehend that the intelligence is doing something is not guaranteed. Further, even if perceived, that perception itself is potentially only incrementally more representative of true understanding than not perceiving it at all. So, for any meaningful purpose, our understanding would be much more closely aligned to that of the ants WRT the 10-lane superhighway.

Another way to look at this is to imagine an infinitely expanding intelligence scale. At some zoom-level, we are pushed so much closer to the ants that the difference is virtually indiscernible.

[1] http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolu...

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#214

Post by brock_r » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

dysfunction wrote: post #165

brock_r wrote: post #130

Can a satellite "orbit" so that it imitates a star? Or would it have to "stand still" out there, which would make it fall back to earth?

A satellite can appear to "stand still" from the perspective of an observer on the ground, so long as it orbits at the right altitude/speed (speed and altitude of an orbit are proportional); the satellite's orbital period just has to be exactly a day long. For Earth, that altitude is about 42,000km up. However, it would still be easily determined to be a nearby satellite as opposed to a distant star by triangulation.…

But the stars don't stand still with respect to an observer on the ground.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#215

Post by brock_r » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

sounds wrote: post #162

brock_r wrote: post #130

Can a satellite "orbit" so that it imitates a star? Or would it have to "stand still" out there, which would make it fall back to earth?

You're suggesting we fake a signal? Technically, a satellite could be parked in a Lagrange Point. But the signal would have to be very, very convincing because there will be many, many very smart people looking at it.

But wouldn't a Lagrange point satellite appear to move in a completely un-star-like manner over the course of weeks and months?

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#216

Post by hgfischer » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 9:25 PM UTC

I think Giorgio A. Tsoukalos would be the best choice instead of Stephen Hawking, who is against finding ETs.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#217

Post by throwaway41597 » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

murbard2 wrote: post #164

Pigo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like too much assumption to me. The scenario described well by Michio Kaku is the only one that seems probable to me. "Lets say we have an ant hill in the middle of the forest. And right next to the ant hill, they're building a ten-lane super-highway. And the question is 'Would the ants be able to understand what a ten-lane super-highway is? Would the ants be able to understand the technology and the inten…

The only thing this argument has going for it is sounding wise by virtue of being self-deprecating. If there are structured radio signals being emitted, it matters not whether or not we understand what the aliens are up to, if it hits a sweetspot between noise and simplicity we can tell it's a signal. And no, "radio waves" aren't the equivalent of "smoke signals", if there are better ways to communicate across space,…

Isn't encryption the bigger issue? Agreed otherwise.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#218

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 11:19 PM UTC

sixQuarks wrote: post #125

Pigo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like too much assumption to me. The scenario described well by Michio Kaku is the only one that seems probable to me. "Lets say we have an ant hill in the middle of the forest. And right next to the ant hill, they're building a ten-lane super-highway. And the question is 'Would the ants be able to understand what a ten-lane super-highway is? Would the ants be able to understand the technology and the inten…

Elon Musk disagrees with that statement. He believes once intelligence gets beyond a certain threshold (which humans have), there are no such things that are beyond understanding. Most people don't know how to write complex math equations, but that doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is.

[deleted]

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#219

Post by tripzilch » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 12:06 AM UTC

sumitviii wrote: post #212

sixQuarks wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk disagrees with that statement. He believes once intelligence gets beyond a certain threshold (which humans have), there are no such things that are beyond understanding. Most people don't know how to write complex math equations, but that doesn't mean they can't understand what mathematics is.

I was going to make logingone's argument but here's a better one: All maths done till ~1600 AD could have been done in 50 years, if you see it from perspective of a civilization which has a stable existence. And forgetting all abstractions, stability of surrounding civilizations is basically a random phenomenon. And I'm sure maths done in physics departments is beyond understanding of 80% people outside it, let alone…

Okay, but there's still a difference between:

1. Knowledge that is potentially within our understanding, as humans, even if it takes a few centuries.

2. Knowledge that would require a few millions of years, because we'd need to evolve beyond our current level of intelligence, similar to what chimps, as a species, would need to do if they were to really understand theoretical physics (that is, assuming chimps would in fact evolve to higher intelligence, if there were, say no humans around).

A reasonable interpretation of Elon Musk's claim would be mainly arguing against the existence of a barrier like the type 2 knowledge. But I could be entirely wrong, I haven't read his reasoning behind this claim.

Re: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner Announce $100M Initiative to Seek ET

#220

Post by chc » Tue, Jul 21, 2015, 1:07 AM UTC

fivedogit wrote: post #196

outworlder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there are structured radio signals being emitted, Why should there be? Earth itself is getting quieter. Our electronics are more sensitive, for the applications that still use radion. For a lot of things, we are using plain boring fiber-optic (and copper) connections.

The earth is getting louder. 150 years ago, we'd have had almost zero light pollution. Nowadays you can't even see stars when you go outside. Not only are there more lights, we are getting more efficient at producing energy to power them.

That's noisier, but it isn't a louder signal. We're talking about detecting alien species across vast distances. You can't do that by looking at a planet's light pollution AFAIK, because giving off this level of light is just not very notable — the sun reflecting off our planet is much brighter.