From: Алексей Турчин (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 25 2007 - 15:27:39 MDT
I am not taking the probability of pneumatic Singularity as high probable. In order to send interstellar messages they have to be in space and know about electicity. So if thier first generation computer was VERY slow, it doesn''t means that the last supercomputer is still slow.
And if they really want to send bad code far away with very high energy, they will try to make it very clear.
And I had told already how they (they - not Upiterians, but their postsingular quick computer) will do it. They shoud send TV program with line end and picture end markers. It will be easily recognized.
And we can't make our safety policy on the assumption, that they for sure will be Upiterians, even if it is possible. Safety means that we take in account the worst, not best scenario. Worst scenario here is that the message will be very clear.
From: "Byrne Hobart" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:47:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: Is SETI dangerous?
> I didn't say the Jupiterians were stupid. They're highly intelligent
> -- they just happen to have much slower subjective time. They used to
> live 25 million years per generation -- thanks to their
> pneumatic-computer Singularity, they can experience the same
> subjective time in 1/1000 as long -- which still makes them 1/1000 as
> fast as us. What I'm asking is how they'd even know we were here. Our
> existence is, in a way, transmitted on a different frequency.They
> don't have any reason to see us as 'intelligent' for the same reason
> we don't administer IQ tests to mushroom.
> It's more complicated than being able to describe an AI in some
> notation. You also have to know how to translate that notation into
> someone else's. Even if we have the source code, we have no clue what
> kind of compiler they want. Differences this vast are analogues to
> compressing data -- it's going to look like noise -- so we'll have no
> idea whether their information is in binary or unary or phinary, and
> won't even be able to break it up into something with an analyzable
> Basically, it's a problem of context. You need context to understand
> the meaning of data, but to get that context, you already have to have
> the meaning.
Посетите мой Живой Журнал www.livejournal.com/users/turchin - и узнайте то, что я думаю прямо сейчас - и ещё то, что хотел сказать вам, но не успел :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT