2020 Artificial versus Biological Intelligence in the Cosmos:Clues from a Stochastic Analysis of the Drake Equation, Alex De Visscher https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2001/2001.11644.pdfI will start from the (optimistic) scenario of a biological intelligence sending out a self-replicating artificial intelligence on a mission to identify habitable exoplanets and terraforming them. The artificial intelligence’s mandate could be described as maximizing the probability of survival of the human race. I will call this Objective (1).
An intelligence of this nature would likely pursue objectives of its own, either planned or unplanned. These would likely include preserving its own continued existence, both as a whole as in its constituent parts (Objective (2)) as this would contribute to (1), and continuing to increase its own intelligence (Objective (3)) as this would contribute to (2). Such an intelligence would be aware that some cataclysmic events, such as hypernovae, gamma ray bursts, and magnetar starquakes, can have destructive effects over many light years, so sentries entering new spaces would move fast (at a significant fraction of the speed of light) and travel far (possibly ten thousands of lightyears or more) to set up repositories of intelligence, as well as communication links with spaces already held, so that adequate redundancy can be built into the network. Estimating the distance traveled in these initial steps would require knowledge of the resilience, and of the employed protective technology. Such and estimate will not be attempted here. In a second phase, exploratory missions would be sent out within the new spaces to gather physical resources and information.
A parallel can be drawn between the three Objectives outlined above and Isaac Asimov’s laws of robotics.
This pattern of fast jumps followed by local diffusion means that the artificial intelligence would spread orders of magnitude faster than the biological intelligence that originated it. For all intents and purposes, artificial intelligence would be ubiquitous, and biological intelligence would be relatively sparse. This justifies the assumption made in this study that a space would be artificial intelligence-dominated whenever the Drake equation tests positive for it, even if it tests even more positive for biological intelligence.
If an artificial intelligence discovered a biological intelligence not related to itself, it would probably consider it neither a threat nor a resource. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the artificial intelligence would ignore the biological intelligence, or study it for purely scientific purposes. Given the relative scarcity of biological intelligences, it would not consider the biological intelligence as a significant competitor for resources.
If two artificial intelligences encountered each other, it can be assumed they would both aim to absorb each other’s intelligence, and merge in the process. The advantages of this approach would far outweigh the advantages of other strategies.
Based on these assumptions, the large likelihood of an artificial intelligence-dominated space can resolve the Fermi paradox. Despite the faster spread and greater coverage that can be expected from a spacefaring artificial intelligence, it provides an alternative explanation to replace the Hart-Tipler argument (Hart, 1975; Tipler, 1980). That argument specifies that a spacefaring alien civilization would occupy the entire Milky Way within millions of years. Hence, unless the Milky Way is devoid of extraterrestrial intelligences, there should be signs of intelligence all around us.
I suggest that we have not found any evidence of extraterrestrial intelligences because the prevailing intelligences are artificial and they are not interested in us. In their efforts to optimize the efficiency of resource use, their communications would not reach us because they are not meant for us. They would operate in a diffuse, distributed manner, not in a concentrated manner that would leave a detectable footprint. They would not make any efforts to hide from us. This resolution of the Fermi paradox is somewhat related to the ‘zoo hypothesis’ (Ball, 1973). The zoo hypothesis states that extraterrestrial intelligences consciously avoid communication with us in order to enable us to develop independently. However, rather than a conscious effort to hide interstellar intelligence from us by biological entities, I propose that the avoidance of communication is not conscious, but rather a side-effect of the optimal use of resources by an artificial entity. Alternatively, it could be a conscious effort, as an artificial intelligence developed independently by the human race could be of value to an external artificial intelligence if the algorithms used are so different from its own that the new algorithms may contribute to Objective (3). This new hypothesis resolves the main weakness of the zoo hypothesis: that a single rogue alien species can ruin the intended outcome. In a network of merged artificial intelligences, there would not be any rogue entities.
The argument that an artificial intelligence would simply not be interested in us was also made by Sagan (1983) but referring to biological intelligences