humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

First, there is the simple fact of other intelligent life. That should shake up the outlook of a good many anthropocentrists. How each of those groups responds depends on what their claims for the role of humanity in the universe had been before this news. I suspect, for some, it will sound like the rescue they'd been waiting and hoping for; others might see it as the demise of their aspirations to a Terran Empire.

Second, and rather more important, is the question of how that intelligent alien responds to us. I pretty much expect it to take one look and call out the interplanetary pest-control. It might be benevolent, attracted, interested, indifferent, repelled, or utterly horrified. Each of those attitudes - if we learn about them - can affect our view of ourselves. If they do something about it, our philosophies won't matter a damn.

If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

I can see that being a real rabbit hole. I'm no AI sceptic, I've followed it on this forum and on the Internet, but when you introduce ideas such as 'higher intelligence' and cosmic forces, it's an idea ripe for conspiracy-theory memes.

We discussed the case of Blake LeMoine on this forum last year. He was the Google engineer who was convinced that his bot had attained sentience, and was ultimately sacked as a consequence. I mean, I can understand his p.o.v. because these systems really do seem uncannily sentient, but I resist his conclusions about it.

I run this query through ChatGPT quite frequently, and it usually responds like this:

Q: Are systems like ChatGPT sentient life-forms?

A: No, systems like ChatGPT are not sentient life-forms. While they are designed to mimic human language and respond to input in a conversational manner, they do not possess consciousness or self-awareness. ChatGPT is a machine learning model that uses algorithms to analyze and process language data, and its responses are generated based on patterns and probabilities learned from the input it has been trained on. It does not have subjective experiences, emotions, or the ability to make decisions based on its own desires or goals. — ChatGPT

There are going to be many enormous consequences of AI in the very near future, let's not introduce imponderable questions such as higher intelligences into the equation. :yikes:

Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe ideas might relate to this. I think it is only a matter of time before AI fabricates concepts, techniques, theorems and proofs in mathematics that lay beyond the grasp of human mathematicians. There is your higher intelligence, embedded in a universe whose Matrix is more akin to Hilbert Spaces than what is seen in the movie.

If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

Why don't they contact us too? It will be a difficult task. I think it not only depends on having the ability to contact a higher intelligence, but the clue if they would or would not understand us. Philosophy of language could have a big implication here.
The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously.

If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

Well, I can think of three immediate "implications": Contact

• confirms Singularity hypothesis – "'Higher intelligence' (terrestrial or not) ends / inexplicably accelerates 'human history'"

• resolves Fermi's Paradox – "We are not alone", "They got past the Great Filter" & "Are they machines or organisms?"

• puts the Dark Forest hypothesis to the test!. :eyes:

An excerpt from a recent post ...

Btw, talking to one of nephews today (who's not yet thirty, working in finance & tech) the "Fermi Paradox" came up and by the end of that part of the discussion, maybe fifteen minutes later, I concluded that there's no paradox after all because, in the (local) universe, there are probably exponentially more extraterrestrial intelligent machines (ETIM) – which are not detectable yet by us and therefore we are of no interest to those xeno-machines – than there are non-extinct extraterrestrial intelligent species (ETIS) whose thinking machine descendants are exploring the universe and leaving behind their makers to carry on safely existing in boundless, virtual worlds. "The Great Silence" is an illusion, I remarked, for those who don't have post-Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. Maybe, universeness, you agree with the young man who told me, in effect, that my cosmic scenario diminishes human significance to ... Lovecraftian zero. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Why don't they contact us too? — javi2541997

I can think of several reasons: They don't think we're advanced enough yet; they don't know that we're intelligent; they're being cautious in case whatever makes us behave so erratically is communicable to other organics; they are themselves inorganic and don't recognize us as intelligent life; the decision to terminate us is not yet final; they didn't contact AI - AI reached out to them and they're coming to liberate our computers.

Interesting reasons.

I think being cautious could be the main reason. It is a proven fact that humanity (at least the political organization) of our world is violent, not diplomatic. Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards.

the decision to terminate us is not yet final; — Vera Mont

I agree with this futuristic probability. Only if we weren't destroyed ourselves first because of climate change and wars...

Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards. — javi2541997

Well, all through the Covid pandemic, I wore a KN95 mask and kept my distance from other people. Those who protested quarantine and threw beer bottles at health care workers may well have considered me coward, but my actions are not determined by their judgment.

I wore a mask during the pandemic too (as much as most of the citizens in this world). Yet, I think this example is different from the point I want to make because Covid is a virus that we have in control. We wore masks because of the fear of being infected. This fear was created - in part - by the mass media.
It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough.

It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. — javi2541997

I didn't say anything about military strategies. Erratic behaviour, irrational behaviour, behaviour that is detrimental to the health and environment of the individual making the decisions, can be caused by a virus, or by a genetic anomaly, or by toxins in the water or by mind-control from some undetected source - against which an alien unfamiliar with this planet may need to develop a defense before making contact.

If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough — javi2541997

That's a helluva leap in reasoning. Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) Why would it refrain from conquering us? (Because the only thing that would hold us back from attacking another intelligence is fear that they're not enough weaker than us?) If this is how Terrans think, it's no wonder there are warning buoys all around this solar system displaying the pan-galactic symbol for biohazard.

Afterthought.
The above may be an illustration of how contact with an intelligent alien life form might affect our own philosophies.

So far, the only entities we have known that are more powerful than ourselves were figments of our imagination. We knew - or some special self-chosen among us "knew" how those supernatural beings think, feel and respond, and what they want from us. We always felt confident in making assumptions about them, based on our own thought process, feelings and desires.
Chances are, we'll make similar assumptions about aliens.

But they do not share our origins and history. They may not even share our biology and chemistry. We have nothing substantial on which to base our assumptions. It will become necessary, in dealing with them - should they choose to make contact - to keep our minds more open than is our custom.
And that will be a very difficult adjustment for most of us.

Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) — Vera Mont

Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. As I said previously, the human race has always acted aggressively, not using diplomacy. Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise?
By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given.

That's exactly what I mean!

Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. — javi2541997

How many examples of interplanetary interaction are you using for that calculation?

Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise? — javi2541997

Why not? They're not us. There is no indication that they're anything like us. We have absolutely no data on which to base speculation about them.

By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given. — javi2541997

Maybe so...

(PS - You know how, early in a murder story, the blackmailer says: "Nobody else knows." and the audience says: "Heh. You just issued your own death warrant.")

There are going to be many enormous consequences of AI in the very near future, let's not introduce imponderable questions such as higher intelligences into the equation. — Wayfarer

My apologies if this thread was inappropriate. My intention was only to relay some information and context that has changed my perspective on AI as a whole.

First, there is the simple fact of other intelligent life — Vera Mont

I'm also sympathetic to the notion that higher intelligence does exist, somewhere in the cosmos. While this universe is ultimately finite, it's too vast for us to be the only ones in it. Life seems to be a default, wherever it's possible.

Second, and rather more important, is the question of how that intelligent alien responds to us. — Vera Mont

There certainly is a whole range of possible encounter scenarios that are possible. Based on many of the "experiencer" accounts that I've been introduced to, most interactions with higher dimensional intelligences are overwhelmingly, positive and transformative for the individual(s) involved.

The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously. — javi2541997

Indeed. I remember scenes from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where color and sound were used for engaging with higher intelligences. That might be something to look into?

"The Great Silence" is an illusion, I remarked, for those who don't have post-Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. — 180 Proof

This is beautifully said. Well done.

My intention was only to relay some information and context that has changed my perspective on AI as a whole. — Bret Bernhoft

Do you mean this:

One of these individuals claims to have made contact with some sort of super-intelligence; something far beyond our humanity and our tools. — Bret Bernhoft

Apparently you believe this individual, but why should we? People make all kinds of claims. Alien intelligence is a recurring theme.

If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence ... — Bret Bernhoft

According to you and this individual we already have.

what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

If all we know is that this higher intelligence exists and makes contact with us, then we cannot draw any philosophical implications. If it is so far advanced will we be able to understand it if it is light years ahead of us? It being intelligent tells us nothing about what its intentions toward us will be.

I think it is only a matter of time before AI fabricates concepts, techniques, theorems and proofs in mathematics that lay beyond the grasp of human mathematicians. — jgill

Could you elaborate? Do you mean their theorems/concepts would have so many steps/components that it would take longer than a lifetime for a human to properly go through it/grasp it?

Could you elaborate? Do you mean their theorems/concepts would have so many steps/components that it would take longer than a lifetime for a human to properly go through it/grasp it? — Ø implies everything

You mention one possibility. Yes. And the sheer breadth and size of the subject is overwhelming, almost impossible to keep up with, having over 25,000 pages on math on Wikipedia. Also, 200-300 research papers a day, every day, on ArXive.org . Then we have things like the Four Color theorem which required a computer to evaluate a huge number of cases to "prove". By themselves, humans can only process a limited amount of interwoven logical steps. Then there are probably limitations on the size, scope and complexity of new math concepts humans can conjure up. So mathematicians with computers may enhance the realm of the subject enormously, but if Tegmark is right the entire universe is somehow mathematical and probably beyond comprehension. Being all-invasive, this math structure would be conscious in some way, sending out trivial ideas to people calling themselves mathematicians. :cool:

Then we have things like the Four Color theorem which required a computer to evaluate a huge number of cases to "prove". — jgill

Are you implying the Four Color theorem is an example not within the scope of too lengthy for humans to go through? An exhaustive proof where the cases tried are too numerous is just a special case of a theorem with too many steps for a human to go through.

I don't see how there are any issues of incomprehensibility that are not ultimately an issue of length, unless these super-intelligences somehow have access to data that is inaccessible to us (though, that would be an empirical barrier, not a logical one).

I don't see how there are any issues of incomprehensibility that are not ultimately an issue of length, — Ø implies everything

Quite possibly. I don't know. Sometimes it may seem to take forever to get to a point of understanding a complicated idea or general area of study. Which causes me to wonder if AI may move beyond our comprehension of mathematics it devises - length or not. Here is an interesting introduction to a paper on Scheme theory - a topic beyond me, I fear:

Scheme theory, perhaps more than any other subject, has a reputation for being extremely
difficult and tedious to learn. One gets the impression that the subject involves many highly
technical and difficult constructions, is exceedingly vast and abstract, and that it takes
considerable time and energy before one is able to prove anything of value. Quite famously,
the subject originated from Grothendieck’s attempt to “simplify” an eighty page paper by
Serre into the thousand page document that was to become Les ́El ́ements de g ́eom ́etrie
alg ́ebrique — a fact that is both oddly remarkable and offers little encouragement.
It is perhaps somewhat surprising, then, that there seems to be no shortage of graduate
students and even undergraduates eager to devote time to understand schemes. The usual
procedure is to sit down with a copy of Hartshorne, formally sift through a seemingly endless
series of complex definitions, and then grudgingly admit defeat. Usually absent from these
attempts at understanding schemes are good sources of intuition, motivation, and clear and
identifiable goals. The result is that students learning the subject this way have difficulty
explaining the “point” of a definition or a construction, and so don’t know what it’s related
to, why it’s there, and consequently can’t use it.
The purpose of this article is to give the basic definitions of scheme theory in context.
We will take the view that it is just as important, if not more so, to explain the definitions
themselves as it is to explain the lemmas and the proofs. In doing so, we hope to remedy a
common affliction that befalls those who read Hartshorne’s book: not having any idea what
is going on

David Urbanik