All Attempts to Broadcast Our Presence to Nearby Stars Should Be Forbidden

Here you can find a list of when there might be a response to known prior contact attempts within a century, assuming immediate light-speed response, and whether there are known terrestrial planets around the stars. This is incredibly dangerous and reveals the presence of intelligence on Earth to anything that might be listening, and should be immediately stopped (see Stephen Hawking's take on this here.) Granted, astronomers' definition of habitable - "terrestrial planet orbiting in liquid water temperature zone" - leaves a lot to be desired.

Until now. Measurements of terrestrial planets can now show if there is an atmosphere and it contains hydrogen, oxygen, and N2, making at least some water quite likely (Konatham et al 2020.)

We can update the list of stars where we've already broadcast contact attempts, with these new stricter criteria. There are two planets with atmospheres and likely water that we have deliberately broadcast to: Teegarden's Star, a red dwarf (with two planets with likely water), with a response possible by 2036; and GJ273b (Luyten's Star), with a super Earth with likely water, responding at earliest 2043.

Two facts to modify our enthusiasm:

• Both are red dwarfs, which have a habit of flaring. However, Luyten's Star is quiet by these standards.
• Also, aliens looking at our solar system using the same definition would keep both Mars and Venus on this stricter habitable list. Both do have atmospheres and some water.

Proxima Centauri is the closest star but in this more-strict list of habitable planets, but we haven't deliberately targeted it. It's worth pointing out that even if there were a twin Earth there, we still wouldn't be able to hear them (the C-index - a rule of thumb, assuming that strength of a civilization's emissions and ability to detect increase in concert.)

(Encouraging to amateurs: Teegarden's Star was discovered by a group of non-professional astronomers poring over data online, without access to telescopes.)

Konatham S, Martin-Torres J, Zorzano M. Atmospheric composition of exoplanets based on the thermal escape of gases and implications for habitability. Published:09 September 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0148

New Approaches on What the Fermi Paradox Means for the Future of Humanity

I was lucky to attend a video lecture by James Miller, economist at Smith College, facilitated by Joshua Fox. Thanks for having this event! I contacted James to let him know I would be posting this and to let him proofread my recapitulation of his argument so as to avoid mis-paraphrasing him; my thanks to him for taking the time to correct me on several points. Of course any errors are mine.

Much of this is familiar terrain for those of us who spend our time considering X-risk and the Fermi paradox. Miller's thesis is that we are at a critically important point in human history, a window where we think that in the near future we can start colonizing the galaxy (the year 2614 at earliest, by this calculation) but at the same time where we are smart enough to destroy ourselves. Since it is not obvious that the galaxy has already been colonized by other civilizations, there may be a Great Filter stopping this from happening. Miller uses the analogy of a person about to climb a mountain, believing that everyone else who has attempted it has died in the process.

Several challenges were discussed by attendees. (If you attended the lecture and want to claim credit for your question, please comment below, thanks.)

1. It's too early to say there are no civilizations; it may not be so easy to detect them or rule them out. We're still discovering metazoans in Manhattan so it seems a little early to rule out von Neumann probes on low gravity bodies in the solar system. We've barely begun to catalog the fauna of our own ocean floors. We could not detect a twin Earth emitting the same radio energy (the C-index), even if it was orbiting Alpha Centauri. Miller points out that even if there were only a few civilizations in the Milky Way preceding us, "the galaxy is older than it is big", and these earlier civilizations could have colonized it already.
   
   
2. He made the point that the things which prove advantageous in the midst of evolving on a single planet might have no such advantages in terms of galactic colonization. Very true; I would argue that we are much more likely to find alien artifacts, than the aliens themselves, as all of us meat-creatures might be stuck on our planets while our machines colonize the galaxy. To that end, (my point) it's entirely plausible that the Solar System could be littered with space probes and we haven't found any yet, or did, and just didn't know what we were looking at.
   
   
3. I would therefore extend Miller's analogy like this. Only in the process of climbing the mountain, does our climber develop wilderness skills and begin to see things that resemble his own boot tracks, etc. and finally as he approaches the summit realizes that lots of people have climbed it, come down the other side, and their descendants have built large villages which due to his previous ignorance he has not been able to locate. (Or, maybe just some of their livestock, trained birds-of-prey, etc. have made it.)
   
   
4. Active attempts to bring ourselves to the attention of aliens have occurred (METI) and been roundly criticized. Miller notes that the risk of extinction from aliens over the next few centuries is lower than eg bio-terrorism or an intelligence singularity. True; but we still may be making life more difficult for our descendants. Related to this, he proposes an ingenious experiment that for a month we should shout our heads off electromagnetically, and see if there is any strange activity. While I agree it's unlikely we'll get invaded next week, I still think the risk:benefit does not work out and there are just too many unknowns, and we may be screwing our distant descendants. Miller suggested that enforcing a moratorium on METI-like activities is probably impossible.
   
   
5. He argues that technological singularities of the paperclip maximizer variety are unlikely to be a major contributor to the Great Filter, because we would be able to see the boundary of it as it expanded (unless it was doing so at light speed.) My concern with this is that, while an AGI might be much smarter than its creators, it is still not omniscient, and the impact of its actions could in principle still outstrip its ability to predict that impact. This is the story behind the rise of human intelligence and the sixth great extinction that we're living through, but has happened in pulses of endogenous extinctions throughout Earth's history (the rise of superpredators every fifty million years or so, the Oxygen Catastrophe). The lesson of evolution here on Earth is that the smarter things are, the faster their behavioral plasticity "catches up with them" in exactly these sorts of disasters, so to suppose that alien paperclip maximizers are immune to this problem is to argue that a qualitative change in ecological dynamics has occurred.
   
   
6. There were two (possibly unappreciated) related questions asked: one about civilization perhaps being bad for sustaining civilization (witness declining birth rates in the developed world) and another that intelligences might prefer virtual reality - involution - to expanding into space. Miller points out the passive version of the "baseball bat" problem: you can live in heaven, but if a bad guy comes and bashes your server with a club and you as you sleep in your VR pod, that's the end of it. (Related: dynamic complex systems like minds, in principle, tend to drift toward delusion and suffer inherent cyclic crises.) It's a thesis for someone in psychology or a related field to note whether there is causation or just correlation between the increasingly encompassing virtual reality-like entertainments available in the developing world, and declining birth rates.
   
   
7. One questioner asked about the distinction between intelligence and civilization - humans have had a "civilization" only since agriculture. This was a really original line of thought. Therefore, there could be many alien intelligences, but few or no civilizations. One solution for humans avoiding the Great Filter would be to abandon civilization and go back to hunting-gathering - not directly suggested, but this is the only implication of such an argument I could think of. The extreme number of assumptions built in to discussion of alien civilizations should always be pointed out - civilization is something that collections of human nervous systems do, and it is not clear it is a necessary consequence of intelligence. (As a physician I ask: do we assume the aliens will have similar EKG waveforms and liver enzymes as us? No, because that's ridiculous. So we do we assume that the even more complex activity of another organ, that we don't even share with other animals on this planet, is automatically going to be meaningfully similar?)

There's also a psychological point to be made about "big picture" arguments (the singularity, the Fermi paradox, the simulation argument, etc.) They have a tendency to converge on either prophetic religion-like conclusions (e.g. the singularity as the rapture for nerds) or Lovecraft (the estivation hypothesis, which was mentioned in a question and made me think about this.) When we talk about these things, there are many many unknowns. In such discussions, I think there is a tendency for the resulting arguments to resemble the internal contours of the human mind, more than any future events in the actual external world; hence their regression to religion-like conclusions. This does not mean such an argument must be incorrect, but it should make us suspicious when a big-picture argument hews too close to our "ontological test pattern. "

Consider in contrast cosmologists' models of the distant future of the universe, which concern physical objects which we can now observe and characterize, using rigorous mathematical rules. These models often seem boring, meaningless, difficult to understand, and unsatisfying. This is exactly how we should expect most models will seem of things outside our own and our ancestors' experiences, or beyond the scale of time and space to which we are accustomed and which we are built to perceive; the further outside their experience, the moreso. This occurred to me when we were discussing the estivation hypothesis, though overall Miller's arguments do not set off many alarm bells for this quick-and-very-dirty heuristic.

An Existential Risk Comparable to the Singularity

Imagine that due to some breakthrough in computer science, we can determine (with certainty) that for a certain architecture, there are some designs that will "work"; that is, when activated, become a successful recursively self-improving general AI. Now assume that 13 such designs have already been tried. A tiny fraction to be sure; and yet in no case has there been any discussion before the research team turned each of them on, no input from other researchers, no public comment, and certainly no attention from policy makers of any sort.

The catch is that this architecture is highly iterative, and it has to run for a long time before you find out if it's going to "wake up" - consequently the researchers load the software and hardware into satellites, because the earliest any of them would "wake up" would be 2036. (For our purposes, assume once launched, these satellites are out of reach - like Elon Musk's car.)

I assume the AI safety community would have something to say about this; about people unilaterally turning on instances of this architecture, and placing it out of reach. Unlikely though it is, any one of those could wake up and we could find the Solar System transformed overnight, and not necessarily to humanity's benefit.

Why such an esoteric thought experiment? It's not really a thought experiment. There have already been 13 active attempts so far (that we know about) to signal nearby star systems. Given the constraint of the speed of light, the earliest we could hear back (or meet someone/something) from any of them would be 2036. Much like the satellite-launched AIs, once you send the message, you can't delete it from their inbox. The 1-in-29 million comes from the original Drake equation estimate of 3,500 civilizations in the galaxy, and one hundred billion star systems. Note that this thought experiment assumes every species is confined to one solar system, but if they have interstellar travel (and follow the signal back to the source) then that 1-in-29 million probability would be much higher.

AIs are at least designed by humans, with possible ethical constraints. Aliens able to visit our solar system would not in any way have our interests at heart. If you're in the rationalist community and you're concerned about a technological singularity, you should be very concerned about existential-risk-level-dangerous wildcat attempts to reveal our presence to other solar systems. This is called METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence) instead of SETI, and you can read more about stopping it here.

STOP METI

tl;dr if you worry about the singularity or bio-terrorism as an existential threat, you should help the effort to stop efforts to announce our presence to aliens. This should be a priority for the rationalist and effective altruism community.

Many people are familiar with the SETI project, Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. METI stands for Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Freeman Dyson believe this is incredibly stupid and dangerous.

Of the 13 (known) attempts to deliberately signal another star so far, the earliest that any response could be received is 2036. The earliest that any response could be received from a sun-like star with planets in the habitable zone is 2085. Additional attempts are almost certain to be made in the next few years.

Most scientists recognize how important - in fact, world-shattering - contact with aliens would be, and there's actually a protocol for what scientists should do if a message is received. But these attempts are being made by individuals or small groups, with no oversight, often with really stupid justifications. One was an art project; this one invited kids to compose the message.

The argument against deliberate messaging is that even here on Earth, contact between members of the same species with differing technology was catastrophic for not just the humans on one side, but the ecosystems. A visit from aliens with enough technology to detect us or visit would therefore likely be devastating, even if they don't have malicious intentions. Once we're detected, we can never be un-detected.

The arguments for METI are laughable, and best thought of in terms of a native American on the shores of the Atlantic, talking about building signal fires to bring the Europeans over even sooner. Their best arguments are:

• Aliens might already have noticed us anyway. (So why make it more likely?)
• It's extremely unlikely anyone will get the message (So why do it at all?)
• They won't come for a long time. (If we discovered a form of energy that would start poisoning our descendants in 10,000 years, would we use it?)
• If all the other aliens are remaining silent, then by doing the same, we're part of the problem, and we're hypocrites for trying to detect others (given the risk:benefit, that's a trade most of us would be comfortable making.)
• Aliens who can respond or come here will necessarily be moral beings and won't hurt us. (This one is really absurd, and not only makes assumptions about the intentions of the aliens, it sounds very much like a religious conviction.)

You can see a more thorough treatment of these arguments by a SETI expert in this paper, and the abstract finishes with these sentences: "Arguments in favor of METI are reviewed. It is concluded that METI is unwise, unscientific, potentially catastrophic, and unethical."

You can see some of these arguments being made with a straight face by METI's founder Doug Vakoch in this article. Note that METI is a splinter of SETI, since most of the scientists involved in SETI forbade active communication attempts.

Going forward I'm going to do my best to create awareness in the rationalist community and put priority on this as an existential threat alongside AI. My plan is to contact the people at SETI to see what they're already doing and how others can contribute. It seems like the best approach for now is stopping transmissions by blocking individual projects, but ideally there would actually be a law against this as well as norms that socially punish defectors. To end on an optimistic note: because there is a chokepoint (money and limited time on transmitters which are mostly controlled by universities) this problem is actually much more tractable than avoiding a "bad hard takeoff" of general AI.