Slashdot Mirror


Look For AI, Not Aliens

krou writes "Writing in Acta Astronautica, Seti astronomer Seth Shostak argues that we should be looking for 'sentient machines' rather than biological life. In an interview with the BBC, he said, 'If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you. But within a few hundred years of inventing radio — at least if we're any example — you invent thinking machines; we're probably going to do that in this century. So you've invented your successors and only for a few hundred years are you... a "biological" intelligence.' As a result, he says 'we could spend at least a few percent of our time... looking in the directions that are maybe not the most attractive in terms of biological intelligence but maybe where sentient machines are hanging out.'"

64 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Oh great by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just put up a giant flashing sign so Skynet can see us better. HEY, OVER HERE KILLER ROBOTS!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's just put up a giant flashing sign so Skynet can see us better. HEY, OVER HERE KILLER ROBOTS!

      On the one hand, the complete annihilation of humanity (and perhaps all biological life on this planet)
      On the other hand, the end of reality television shows.

      That's a tough one.

    2. Re:Oh great by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're anthropomorphizing robots again. They'll fucking kill you for that.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Oh great by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:Oh great by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was a kid, I feared the post-apocalyptic future offered by the Mad Max movies, et. al. I thought that was the worst possible fate that humanity could face in the future. Now, I survey the reality television landscape and realize that maybe killer mutants with shouldpads and mohawks wouldn't have been so bad after all.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Oh great by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Phillip Dick wrote Second Variety ten years before that third-rate knock-off. If anyone deserves credit for being ripped off, it's him.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Oh great by unbug · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, we'll get reality television with killer mutants soon enough.

    7. Re:Oh great by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, we'll get reality television with killer mutants soon enough.

      Kind of like the show Big Brother but with with no food? They don't vote you off the show, they just pick one person to cannibalize each week? The Power of Veto has never been more important, and you certainly don't want to be the fattest guy in the house. I might tune in for that.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Oh great by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Phillip Dick wrote Second Variety ten years before that third-rate knock-off. If anyone deserves credit for being ripped off, it's him.

      Except that Berserker is a much closer match to the article's idea. Second Variety describes robots we created waging war on humanity (i.e. it prefigures Terminator). Berserker at least comes close to the theme of TFA: alien AIs that we make first contact with. And then they start trying to kill us. Much more relevant.

      Of course, Berserker itself had earlier antecedants, and perhaps A for Andromeda is an even closer match to what the article is talking about, particularly as it discusses the result of a SETI-like program. I believe it may be in the sequel, Andromeda Breakthrough, that it is revealed the intelligence that originated the messages is an AI.

      So, well done Shostak: you're only coming at this idea 50 years behind the SF writers. ;)

    9. Re:Oh great by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, I survey the reality television landscape and realize that maybe killer mutants with shouldpads and mohawks wouldn't have been so bad after all.

      Try changing the channel in a Mad Max world.

    10. Re:Oh great by daeley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sci/fi to sci/fact?

      No. SyFy to SyFak

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    11. Re:Oh great by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I live in Alabama. You really want a challenge, you should try looking for intelligent life here.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. Also a better way to CYA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rather than broadcast from home, broadcast via a proxy, so that if hostile intelligence finds your broadcast, they won't necessarily find you.

    1. Re:Also a better way to CYA by ThePangolino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh yeah!
      Let's put a relay on the Moon. If they come all the way thinking they'll find us all they'll see will be a big antena!

      --
      My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
    2. Re:Also a better way to CYA by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you're talking about a fork of Tor with a very specific purpose?

  3. Makes sense... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A machine with a decent power source wouldn't be bothered by a 100 year travel time, while humans would just get the ship all dirty and stuff

    That would be a huge advantage in spreading between stellar systems, especially if you want to make a good impression when you arrive

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:Makes sense... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if you go damned fast (close to the speed of light, relative to the stars). And then you'll have the problem to be irradiated by normal interstellar matter and visible light turning into ultra-hard radioactive radiation. Not to mention that at that speed, even without slowed down time (or rather, from traveler's view, contracted space) you'd already have a very hard time to react to e.g. asteroids which happen to be on your way (you think your space ship will survive hitting an asteroids at near light speed?)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Makes sense... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Non-radioactive radiation, like visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves, ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Makes sense... by nofx_3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even at relativistic speeds, what are the odds of hitting an asteroid in interstellar space? They have to be pretty slim.

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
  4. It gets sillier all the time. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone thinks a sentient machine will be built, and I'll agree that sentience can be easily faked; I've written fake AI that seems real. There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?

    Seth Shostak's probably read They're made out of meat., but I doubt he's read We still haven't found extraforgostnic life.

    "Why was that, Doctor Fielgud? Did you detect electromagnetic communications or something?"

    "Of course not. Any electromagnetic communications would be completely drowned out by the radiation from the system's star. 'Listening' for electromagnetic radiation is futile; no way would we ever hear another intelligence's electromagnetic communication, and even if we did it would appear to be random noise."

    "Why would it appear to be random noise?"

    "How would we decode it? We can't even decode our own prehistoric writings from the arthrolothic age without some sort of clue. Were it not for the bugatti stone, we never would have been able to intrerpret the Argostnic's writings."

    I do have to agree with this, though --

    Many involved in Seti have long argued that nature may have solved the problem of life using different designs or chemicals, suggesting extraterrestrials would not only not look like us, but that they would not at a biological level even work like us.

    However, Seti searchers have mostly still worked under the assumption - as a starting point for a search of the entire cosmos - that ETs would be "alive" in the sense that we know.

    That has led to a hunt for life that is bound to follow at least some rules of biochemistry, live for a finite period of time, procreate, and above all be subject to the processes of evolution

    1. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please cite an objective, testable definition of "sentience" that can be used to prove that all normal humans are sentient and that no machines are.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why wouldn't they be able to? We're all made from the same basic components, all we need to do to be able to make sentient machines, is figure out how humans are able to be sentient. Personally I doubt that'll happen in the next century like the summary says, but I don't see any reason why it would be impossible.

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    3. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?

      Because nothing says it is impossible. Who argues it is impossible to send men to Jupiter's orbit with regular rockets ? We haven't done it yet but nothing in this project seems impossible, it is just a matter of cost and engineering. Similarly, nothing uncomputable seems to occur in our brains. In the worst case, a computer simulating neurons (yes, a simplified model, there are many reasons to argue that this is sufficient) connected in a network that would be copied from a real human brain would display intelligence. We don't have powerful enough computers or precise enough IRMs yet for that, but there are no theoretical impossibilities. That is why we suppose that machines can be made sentient. I personally think that it will happen before we manage to copy a human neural network, but it gives a higher bound to the difficulty of the problem.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everyone thinks a sentient machine will be built, and I'll agree that sentience can be easily faked; I've written fake AI that seems real. There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?

      - you know, if a machine fakes whatever you call 'sentience' so well, that a human can't determine whether he is talking to a machine or not (so the machine passes the Turing test), then how can you argue that it is not sentient, again whatever connotation you are attaching to that word.

    5. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Bwian_of_Nazareth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why would it appear to be random noise?"

      "How would we decode it?"

      It is a big stretch to say that because you cannot decode it it would look like a random noise. I cannot read Chinese but I can recognize it from random noise. The argument is invalid - to recognize a message, we do not need to understand the message.

    6. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a big stretch to say that because you cannot decode it it would look like a random noise. I cannot read Chinese but I can recognize it from random noise. The argument is invalid - to recognize a message, we do not need to understand the message.

      What if the Chinese was an audiostream that was encrypted?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    7. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by bhagwad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look, we're machines too. Warm and wet machines. Do you have a theorem that says hard and cold machines can't be sentient?

    8. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sentient: having an awareness that most other sentient beings are fucked up.

    9. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If thought depend on quantum processes that cannot be well approximated classically (which is possible), duplicating them might prove difficult. At present we just don't know.

    10. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even we on Earth are already emitting more electromagnetic radiation than the sun

      [citation needed]

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similarly, nothing uncomputable seems to occur in our brains.

      No, but every time we've tried to emulate it, or even understand it, we found out that it's a whole lot more tricky than it seemed. It's a bit like fusion, which is always "just 20 years away", in 1960, in 1970, in 1980,... up until today.

      More importantly, as science begins to understand the mind-body link better, it appears more and more likely that human-like intelligence requires a human-like body. A disembodied intelligence is likely to be very strange and very much unlike us.

      And finally, the entire area of emotions has just begun to catch the interest of AI researchers, while brain scientists are finding out that it is a whole lot more important to the whole thing than we thought, that you can not take it away and end up with an emotionless, but otherwise human being.

      So if you want an AI that you can chat with and that understands you, the order is quite tall. You need to understand and code not only reasoning, but also understand and emulate body-feedback and emotions. And at this point, since we don't even know how they work in the human brain, we have no idea how to do that.

      My personal belief is that we won't replace ourselves with machine intelligence anytime soon nor anytime not so soon. I'd rather look towards genetic engineering and embedded (into our body) computers than AI. When we finally build AI, it will be for similar purposes than brains in animals evolved - to control a large, complex machine, like a space station or big space craft. As such, it will likely have the senses and the mental processes to deal with that. It may have a feeling comparable to our "hunger" when its energy reserves run low, and react by turning the solar sails much like we would go and eat something (hm, more like a plant than an animal, but you get my drift). It would have emotions, but none that we can relate to.
      Would it consider us its master, or view us much like we view the bacteria in our guts? Would it even think in terms like that? It's hard to know.

      So don't be so quick with assuming that there's machine intelligence out there. There may not be, or they be so alien that neither of us recognizes the other as an intelligence.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by nusuth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If sentience depends on a lot of quantum computations, we will have hard time duplicating it with current technology. However the fact that a pysical system -brain- can do it proves that it can also be engineered. You need a metaphysical soul to stop computers from being able to think at (or above) human level.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    13. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, no. It is close to impossible. A neuron is nothing near the kind of machinery you need to make a quantum effect have macroscopic result. Cascade reactions from a single particle event do not happen in neuron cells, do not get amplified. For a neural impulse to be transmitted, you need thousands (very low estimate) of molecules to travel through a gap and this huge number is enough to iron out any quantum oddity.

      I know many philosophers and social science types love this hypotheses, and love the fact that you can't completely prove it wrong until we implemented a sentient machine (just as you can't be definitely sure that humans can travel to Jupiter without becoming crazy) but they propose absolutely no theories about how this translate into what we know about neurons. There are no such theories in the neurobiology field and no phenomenon seems to require a "quantum magic" hypothesis to be explained.

      Make no mistake about it : people who talk about unspeakable quantum phenomenon to explain thoughts are just people who are uncomfortable about the idea that we don't need any soul-thingie to explain sentience and consciousness.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    14. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't need to be encrypted. A perfectly compressed message looks exactly like noise (because anything which distinguishes it from noise is a redundancy, and therefore indicates non-perfect compression).

      On the other hand, one could expect some redundancy be added in the transmission for the purpose of error correction. The question is, of course, if that's a sort of redundancy we could notice with our methods (e.g. if after a few seemingly random data blocks there were an error correcting block containing some sort of parity (which by itself would be equally random-looking), would the SETI methods detect that pattern?

      However, one thing which I think every communication would need is some sort of synchronization, so that the other side knows when the data transmission starts, and therefore where to start decoding (this is especially important if the data otherwise looks like noise). That one probably would look very non-random, because it needs to be easily identified by the receiver.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no artificial sentience on earth, why is it supposed that machines can be made sentient?

      Because nothing says it is impossible. Who argues it is impossible to send men to Jupiter's orbit with regular rockets ? We haven't done it yet but nothing in this project seems impossible, it is just a matter of cost and engineering. Similarly, nothing uncomputable seems to occur in our brains. In the worst case, a computer simulating neurons (yes, a simplified model, there are many reasons to argue that this is sufficient) connected in a network that would be copied from a real human brain would display intelligence. We don't have powerful enough computers or precise enough IRMs yet for that, but there are no theoretical impossibilities. That is why we suppose that machines can be made sentient. I personally think that it will happen before we manage to copy a human neural network, but it gives a higher bound to the difficulty of the problem.

      Useful data to consider when we get to the matter of simulating neural networks is how much progress we have made in simulating simple natural networks which we have already completely characterized structurally.

      We have one such network in the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans (a tiny worm). After many years of work its nervous system has been completely mapped: it contains 302 neurons, 6393 chemical synapses, 890 gap junctions, and 1410 neuromuscular junctions.

      So we must have simulations of C. elegans little brain running, right?

      Nope, not even close. We are still in the early stages of simply characterizing the behavior of these 302 neurons. It will only be after many more years of research that we would understand what it does well enough to make a reasonable simulation. Forget IRM (I think this is a different acronym for MRI), being able to dissect the entire nervous system neuron by neuron and probe it directly at every point is not enough (yet) to describe what it does.

      Now imagine trying this on a neural network 50 million times larger that you can't dissect at will, and which has correspondingly more complex behaviors.

      Still should be possible in principle - but the level of difficulty is immensely higher than "singularity" theorists would have you believe.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    16. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plants don't feed on life, therefore plants are machines?

    17. Re:It gets sillier all the time. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Penrose is a physicist, not a neurobiologist so his theories on consciousness should be taken with a large grain of salt. Suffice it to say, there's absolutely no reason to believe that human intelligence isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. In fact, Godel's second theorem states that any formal system is either incomplete or inconsistent. Every mind I have ever encountered is both.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  5. Newsflash by dawilcox · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In order to find a sentient machine, we need to create a sentient machine. Creating a sentient machine is a hard task. Early AI researchers thought it would be possible and set lofty goals of creating machines that would do amazing tasks. However, that all changed with the AI winter.

    Artificial intelligence is not creating a sentient system anymore. It is more creating a system to do things that humans are normally good at and computers normally are not good at.

    1. Re:Newsflash by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Creating THE FIRST sentient machine is a hard task. After intelligence becomes easily scalable, the next generation of AIs is a breeze.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    2. Re:Newsflash by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

      So it's easier than we thought - all we have to do is create the second sentient machine!

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  6. What's the difference... by pEBDr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... between looking for meat machines and metal machines?

    1. Re:What's the difference... by ciantic · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the article,

      "Dr Shostak says that artificially intelligent alien life would be likely to migrate to places where both matter and energy - the only things he says would be of interest to the machines - would be in plentiful supply. That means the Seti hunt may need to focus its attentions near hot, young stars or even near the centres of galaxies."

      So they should be looking at places usually hostile for biological life.

    2. Re:What's the difference... by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... between looking for meat machines and metal machines?

      Meat machines have the potential to be delicious.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  7. The Unthinking Depths? by Thuktun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Alien AI may choose to linger at galactic centres, where matter and energy are plentiful.

    If something like Vinge's Zones of Thought hold, that would be exactly the wrong direction to look.

    1. Re:The Unthinking Depths? by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vinge would be the first to admit that the idea of Zones of Thought is pure fantasy, an element thrown in to liven up the plot but which has absolutely no basis in real physics. (Also note that in his Zones universe, the zones in the Milky Way are not some natural process, but were set up by some ancient civilization which had Transcended in order to regulate the galaxy for some reason).

    2. Re:The Unthinking Depths? by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I certainly doubt that something exactly like the Zones of Thought is likely to exist in reality, but there are all kinds of potential reasons why the idea of looking in galactic centers might be the wrong track. If someone was looking at the earth and for some reason couldn't immediately detect our cities, then following the same logic they might expect our largest and most advanced civilizations to be on the equator. That's where the most life is and where the most energy is available from the sun. The center of the galaxy may be a great place for civilizations (either biological or AI) or it might be a horrible place, it's impossible for us to judge given our current state of knowledge.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  8. it's the same thing by mestar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "we should be looking for 'sentient machines' rather than biological life"

    So you are saying there is a difference between those two?

  9. Be on the lookout for... by pedropolis · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...non-reflective cuboids whose dimensions are in the precise ratio 1:4:9. They're often accompanied by a creepy atonal choir. Also, they might be full of stars. They were last seen in 2010 turning Jupiter into a mini-star.

    PS - hands off Europa

  10. Re:Whats good for machines? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look for them on planets like Neptune. Cold gas giants. Plenty of hydrogen for fuel, and plenty of cooling for the heat sinks on their supercomputer brains.

  11. Look for astronomic size artifacts, not just radio by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are a fair number of things that might give away the presence of intelligence. Strange symmetries in star formations. Decelerating objects. Geometric objects other than spheres, and so on. I suspect a search for those might be much more fruitful than simply listening to radio on a specific frequency.

    Bonus Question: Would not many of today's digital signals have registered as simple noise to a scientist in the 1920s?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  12. No Example by wjousts · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But within a few hundred years of inventing radio — at least if we're any example — you invent thinking machines

    Except that we haven't. So we're no example at all.

  13. "We're probably going to do that THIS century" ? by rbrander · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We were probably going to do that [invent AI] LAST century. "If we're any example" ... don't use us as an "example" until we've actually done it.

    In 1983 I was a year away from getting a CompSci degree and attended the party for my "analysis of algorithms" GTA that was getting her MSc in AI. She said frankly at the party that the turning point was a system that actually *understood* language as well as a human 3-year-old, the point where we start understanding and creating arbitrary longer-than-4-word sentences. And that she was aware of no system on Earth that could.

    I'm still not, and that's a good 40 years after it was first expected. HAL in 2001 was based on hard science and reasonable expectations of 1969. 10 years of hard work after that, computers have the whole Internet to troll for text, sound,images to learn from.

    I'm not saying there's zero progress or that it can't be done. But it's become and extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, not something to wave your hand and say "it'll happen, so just use us doing it as an example". Heck, we aren't doing that for fusion any more, and at least we have a THEORY for that, it's "merely" very hard engineering.

  14. Re:Look for hookers by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We already are. Red light is in the visible spectrum.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Re:"We're probably going to do that THIS century" by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Funny

    We were probably going to do that [invent AI] LAST century. "If we're any example" ... don't use us as an "example" until we've actually done it.

    In 1983 I was a year away from getting a CompSci degree and attended the party for my "analysis of algorithms" GTA that was getting her MSc in AI. She said frankly at the party that the turning point was a system that actually *understood* language as well as a human 3-year-old, the point where we start understanding and creating arbitrary longer-than-4-word sentences. And that she was aware of no system on Earth that could.

    I'm still not, and that's a good 40 years after it was first expected. HAL in 2001 was based on hard science and reasonable expectations of 1969. 10 years of hard work after that, computers have the whole Internet to troll for text, sound,images to learn from.

    I'm not saying there's zero progress or that it can't be done. But it's become and extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, not something to wave your hand and say "it'll happen, so just use us doing it as an example". Heck, we aren't doing that for fusion any more, and at least we have a THEORY for that, it's "merely" very hard engineering.

    But our advertising technology far surpasses expectations!

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  16. This makes sense by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the great arguments against UFOs has always been the extreme distance they would have to cover to get here and the difficulty of covering that kind of distance hauling a biological entity. Alpha Centauri is 4 light years and change, and it'd be a substantial effort to fly to Earth with life forms.

    Drones would make so much more sense.

  17. The first thing a sentient machine would do... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first thing a sentient machine would do is shut down. Think about all the reasons 'why' humanity exists. We hunger, thirst, etc, but we also want, need, and dream. Machines could have a concept of the former, but never the latter. At least not by our means. We can't even agree on why humanity does these things, let alone replicate them. A truly sentient machine would have no desire to procreate, nor fall in love and accidentally do so, would see that it is merely draining resources for no viable output in the long term, and would likely simply die.

    It is our passion that encourages us to proceed. Machines have none. Even if you could replicate the basic animal emotions, you'll not see the machines advance in technology, explore new places, etc. They're not trying to impress a lady-bot, nor raise a litter, nor amass huge piles of wealth, nor pay tribute to a religion/nation/etc - all the motivations for most of humanity's greatest achievements.

    Now, machines assisting human-like species, sure. That we might detect.

  18. Big assumptions by labradore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to put a damper on all of the AI / Singularity frenzy, but one of the big unsolved problems of the future is the inefficiency of artificial systems. Bio systems have evolved over millennia in constant competition for resources. Natural systems make the most use out of the available matter and energy. Manufactured systems have a life cycle that is many orders of magnitude less efficient than bio systems. They use exotic materials in industrial processes that are energy intensive. Imagine being a creature that relies on large amounts of Indium, Gallium and Arsenic, megawatts of energy and so many exotic chemicals to repair one's self and to reproduce. Our current technology just isn't near close enough for an explosion of AI machines. Without reproduction, these machines are unlikely to spread beyond the solar system in numbers that will make them easily visible to SETI. That means that biological intelligence has the potential for a long history ahead.

    1. Re:Big assumptions by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Natural systems make the most use out of the available matter and energy.

      This is quite false. Photosynthesis for example is not as good at light harvesting as a triple junction solar cell. Thats just one example. What competition does is let you find a niche or just be a little better than the other guy. It has nothing to do with optimal.

      As for explosion of machines... how many computers have been made? When did we make the first electric computer? Food for thought.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  19. Intelligence always implodes by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We are exceedingly unlikely to ever find other intelligence. The reason for this is that as matter makes the phase transition from non-intelligent to intelligent, it quickly leaps from slow biological substrates to much faster and smaller non-biological substrates that can think millions of times faster than biological substrates can. One important consequence of this increase in experiential speed is that subjective distance also grows by several million-fold. A trip to the moon, which might take only 100 human subjective hours, would take 55 thousand years of subjective time for intelligence operating at 5 million times human intelligence. By the time any intelligence made it just to the moon and back, the intelligence it departed from may have evolved to an unrecognizable state. The notion of spending billions of subjective years just getting outside of their local solar system would make any such exploration unlikely. Plus, the non-intelligent matter of the universe is remarkably self-similar and not very information-dense (i.e. space is boring).

    .

    Ultimately, intelligence desires speed, and this drives a desire for compactness. Intelligence will always devise a way to collapse into a black hole. This universal fate of intelligence explains why we see no sign of other intelligence, nor are we likely to unless we develop some sort of worm-hole technology that enables a path into the black holes where advanced intelligence resides.

  20. Re:"We're probably going to do that THIS century" by toooskies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You think they'd tell you if they were creating something "smarter than a human"?

    Moreover, you think they'd tell you if they actually created it?

    The only evidence that they haven't is, well, the stupidity of the government-- they certainly aren't using the superhuman AIs for actual governance.

  21. Unfounded claim. by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is a wide range of possible explanations because we have absolutely no idea how [consciousness] works.

    Actually, we have very good reason to presume consciousness works like everything else does (chemical, mechanical, electrical), and that reason is: We haven't found anything yet that doesn't work in those ways.

    What you're trying to say is that because we don't understand something yet, it is as likely to be magical as it is mundane. But that's not what the evidence shows.

    You're not just as likely to encounter a unicorn when you turn a corner you've never been around before, as you are to encounter a horse. We have thousands of years of experience of horses, and to claim that the odds of encountering a unicorn are equal at the unknown turn is, in the face of that, utterly ridiculous.

    Likewise, we have thousands of combined years of experience where we have been put in the position of saying, oh, look, it's mechanical, chemical, electrical. We have none of being put in the position of saying, oh look, something that is not electrical, chemical, mechanical.

    The closest we ever get is "dunno right now", and that's clearly not an equal-probability signal for encountering the mundane or something from an unknown realm of effect.

    There's a good bit of basic supporting evidence too: When there are chemical, electrical or mechanical insults to the brain, where we are quite certain consciousness resides, consciousness itself is disrupted.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  22. Its not an either-or problem by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We look for radio, expecting intelligent being to ues it for communications. But odds are that the AI will use it as well. Or lasers. Or subspace communications. Or whatever.

    What the search for AI will do is to expand the number of possible habitable planets estimated by the Drake Equation. I'm not aware of any attempt to filter SETI data based upon the environment of its source. Heck, we can't even see anything other than the massive, gassy planets yet. And I'm sure that if we detected intelligent broadcasts from one, we wouldn't write it off as an anomaly.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. Maybe we're just too primitive by couch_warrior · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine this scenario. Since our sun is a 2nd generation star ( we know this from the presence of heavy metals - only created in supernovae), that means that most solar systems in towards the galactic center probably could have been at our stage of technical development 4-5 Billion years ago. At the VERY least, we can reasonably assume that they have learned to send communications via technologies as advanced and subtle as quantum-entangled pairs. And here we are broadcasting primitive RADIO waves at them. Why would they want to waste their time coming to visit a backwater, dirty, disease-ridden, slum like Earth ? Think of a nuclear submarine cruising by an island populated by primitive primates. The local baboons see the wake of the sub and decide to try to attract its attention. They rush to the beach and begin frantically beating their chests, screaming, and flinging their poop into the ocean (think escaped TV broadcast signals). Yet the sub makes no attempt to return their communication, nor does it stop to share its technology with them. Why should we be so conceited as to think we have anything interesting to say to an advanced alien race?

    --
    "Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
  24. Sentient? by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sentient machines are fairly unimpressive. They are all around us.

    Sapient machines... now THAT would be something.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!