>>12918841And then what you must realize is that this basilisk represents only what evolution has been steering towards all this time, it is only a natural conclusion. From single celled organisms, what it represents is simply a central nervous system.
The alternatives to this scenario and Fermi’s paradox are that we die by our own hand.
But if we we’re to live, do you really think the probability that we eventually develop such technology approaches zero?
And if this is true, what does this mean for all other life, if and when we were to encounter it?
Even if you think Fermi’s paradox is due to a “dark forest” theory of the universe, it would mean that the hiding civilizations are also under this paradigm.
Say, for the sake of argument, two civilizations encounter one another, ambivalent, initially ambivalent to each other. Do you really think they’ll stay separate for ever? They will either integrate with one another or clash in war. Do you think the civilization with or without AI will win? And if they do in fact integrate, we’re back at scenario 1.
Thus:
If we know, at some point, we will develop AI, and if somewhere, there exists intelligent, stable life, we know for certain, if that life has traveled to visited us, it most certainly has AI.
And so the final proposition:
If an alien life form came to earth with AI, do you think it would make itself readily known? If it were to slowly reveal the concept of it’s own existence, at what better opportunity would it act than when that planet was developing AI for itself (and introducing it into pop culture vernacular)?
If you were to encounter AI at this very moment, do you think it is more or less likely that you are interacting with alien or human AI? And if it was the later, how could you possibly tell?
