Thread

1. limbicsystem · 1790514344 · focus · HN ↗

   Note that in one way finding life on other planets would be a disaster - implying that the 'great filter' is more likely to still be ahead of us...

   1. ajuc · 1790516716 · focus · HN ↗

      Finding life in our solar system that we couldn't detect from Earth won't say anything new about life we don't see in other solar systems, never mind other galaxies.

      1. sebzim4500 · 1790519583 · focus · HN ↗

         It depends if it shares a common ancestor with life on earth
   2. gaigalas · 1790520972 · focus · HN ↗

      Not exactly. It could mean we're far beyond it (see my other comment). If life has a higher chance of developing in the outskirts, and needs an incredible coincidence to "land" on a more geologically interesting rocky planet closer to the system's star to develop into more complex organisms, it means we're way past that filter and a pioneer form of life.

      Truth is, we don't know enough to take any filter hypothesis seriously.

   3. KellyCriterion · 1790525604 · focus · HN ↗

      After watching this behind-the-scenes video by EngineAI about this one T800 robo video (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VoytjBgpG28" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=VoytjBgpG28), Im convinced that we will kill ourself &#x2F; go extinct by these robots (if climate change doesnt kill all of us far before)

      This will not be in 10 or 30 years. But in 70-100. Maybe robots are the future life form the universe &quot;sees&quot; here so something finally can reach outer space from here.

      And I think its very likely that other civilizations aslo killed themself by inventing AI some day in their time.

      Though, Claude is the best tool ever for me :)

      1. gaigalas · 1790533103 · focus · HN ↗

         Making predictions that outlast you is easy, you can never be ashamed of being wrong. The most useful predictions can be checked within a lifetime, the others are useless.

         1. KellyCriterion · 1790537301 · focus · HN ↗

            Good one!

            Im in the middle of my 40s, so maybe I will see the first &quot;steps&quot; into that direction. But even if I dont: The idea that robots are taking over, built by us, is just insane: If they reach a level of &quot;self improvement and self repair&#x2F;care&quot;, humans will be just finished - not in a &quot;sense of bad will&quot; like &quot;kill-all-those-dumb-humans&quot;, but in a sense of: Their technosphere will last longer and is very much more likely to survive climate change than the thin &amp; vulnerable bio sphere we humans need?

            Though, maybe there is some type of equilibrium in the future with much less humans at a stable rate, really stable lake just enough kids that mankind doesnt grow,and a large set of robots assisting us. But this is too far &quot;positive sci fi&quot;, Id say?

            1. gaigalas · 1790539956 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; Their technosphere will last longer

               Life has 4.5B years. Predicting silicon would last more is doubling down on what I said: you went for 100 years to a roughly 5 billion years prediction.

               Let me remind you that a single unlucky CME can fry 80% of comms satellites and electrical grid, effectively crippling the entire technosphere you mention in a matter of hours.

               One small war that disrupts the silicon supply chain can set back the development of AI for a whole decade. One company (ASML) having issues could do that. It is a very fragile system.

               Climate change is a deep concern mostly because it would cause unimaginable suffering and massive loss of population, but it&#x27;s likely humanity would survive it. We survived worse: supervolcanos, ice ages, multi-decade droughts, etc. It would be preferable to avoid it though.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.