# We have not yet encountered extraterrestrial Strong AI machines, hence the Singularity is impossible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104 "2012-08-30T02:56:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/21 "2012-08-30T04:27:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I don’t think resources would be limited. These guys could just go to an asteroid and convert it into more bots, whatever they want. They will definitely have developed nuclear fusion, so energy would not be limited to send out a ton of probes. > > There are “only” a few hundred billion stars in the Milky Way. It’s really not that big a number. They could find one planet with lots of metal or whatever and just turn it into all the probes they need. > > Even if the center of the galaxy would be relatively appealing, there’s no real reason why near-infinite intelligence should ignore the rest. Sure it does, even machines do understand that it is not just materials but energy, why produce it when one has many sources in the center of the galaxy? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/22 "2012-08-30T04:29:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The basis of the argument works fine when applied to time travel. We haven’t been inundated with time tourists so there will never be a wayback machine. Agreed. > [@](#): > > But you haven’t established that the singularity must have occurred close enough to earth, and long enough ago, that we would have detected it by now. We don’t know there are billions of inhabitable planets in our galaxy, we only know of one. I linked to an article in which scientists say that there _are_ billions of habitable planets in our galaxy. We don’t know if life, especially intelligent life, has developed there, however. > [@](#): > > It seems likely to me that there is more than one, but the next one could easily be 100,000 light years away. The Milky Way is only 100,000 light years across, so that that would be the maximum distance in our own galaxy. > [@](#): > > Even traveling near the speed of light AI bots there would have had to reach the singularity, locate us, decide to contact us, over 100,000 years ago. Add another 160,000 years if they are from the Magellenic Clouds, and another 2 1/2 million years if they are from Andromeda. There could be a million AI bots on their way here from different parts of the universe right now, but they haven’t reached us yet. We need to get the Singularity to happen sooner, it might be our only defense. Yes, you are repeating what I said, but my interpretation is different. 100,000 years is nothing in geologic time. Planets in our galaxy have a wide range of ages, so it is possible that Strong AI could have been developed somewhere millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions of years ago. IOW, there has been a huge pool of time in which the Singularity could have occurred _somewhere_, and after it occurred, it would only need maximum 200,000 years to reach us (at half-light speed) in our galaxy and 5 million years if from a nearby galaxy. I don’t think humans are all that technologically advanced or even all that smart, but, even so, AI proponents tell us that the Singularity is near and inevitable. From that I conclude that a high percentage of intelligent species would develop the Singularity. If we grant that a handful of intelligent species should have evolved by a point of time 10 million years in the past, then I think we have to conclude that the Singularity–if possible at all–should have reached us by now. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/23 "2012-08-30T04:34:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sure it does, even machines do understand that it is not just materials but energy, why produce it when one has many sources in the center of the galaxy? I’m not getting your argument. If humans, right now, could develop trans-light-speed travel, I think you would agree that we would start exploring planets across the galaxy right away. We wouldn’t say, “Fuckit, we’re comfortable here on earth, that’s all that we need.” So why would Strong AI machines do that? Going to the center of the galaxy and soaking up the rays is equivalent to just sitting here on Earth and not doing anything. It’s pretty close in concept to the Strong AI that turns itself off or just sits there doing nothing. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/24 "2012-08-30T04:35:07Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines;15438344 **What if intelligent life aside from humans is extremely rare or nonexistent, and thus there are no Strong AI machines yet in existence?** [/QUOTE] Despite your objections, I’m definitely an agnostic about the issue of ET intelligence. With a sample of 1 there’s nothing we can’t tell about the prevalence of intelligent life (note that even here, it’s not like intelligent life appeared frequently, or that we have evidences that it tends to last long). Also the anthropic principle doesn’t help with the assumption that we aren’t alone. A somewhat frightening explanation that I like : there are plenty of ET intelligences, but they sta ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/25 "2012-08-30T04:36:14Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines;15438344 **What if intelligent life aside from humans is extremely rare or nonexistent, and thus there are no Strong AI machines yet in existence?** [/QUOTE] Despite your objections, I’m definitely an agnostic about the issue of ET intelligence. With a sample of 1 there’s nothing we can’t tell about the prevalence of intelligent life (note that even here, it’s not like intelligent life appeared frequently, or that we have evidences that it tends to last long). Also the anthropic principle doesn’t help with the assumption that we aren’t alone. A somewhat frightening explanation that I like : there are plenty of ET intelligences, but they stay silent.\*\* And there’s a reason for that **:eek: Apart from that, what** Left hand of dorkness \*\*wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/26 "2012-08-30T04:37:21Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Well in that case they simply have not reached us yet. Yes. But I am also arguing that that is also unlikely. There has been a huge pool of time in which Strong AI could have been developed and reached us. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/27 "2012-08-30T04:38:42Z")
The probe has to arrive at earth at some time yes? Therefore, for a universe where the AI singularity is possible, there is a period on Earth that is before the probe arrives and a period that is after the probe arrives. Let’s call them time-a and time-b respectively. For a universe where the AI singularity is impossible, the AI probe never arrives on Earth. You are saying that because there is no probe, we must be in the second universe, but how can you be sure we are not in time-a of the first universe? Why would that look any different to what we see now? ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/28 "2012-08-30T04:40:00Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Agreed. > > I linked to an article in which scientists say that there _are_ billions of habitable planets in our galaxy. We don’t know if life, especially intelligent life, has developed there, however. > > The Milky Way is only 100,000 light years across, so that that would be the maximum distance in our own galaxy. > > Yes, you are repeating what I said, but my interpretation is different. 100,000 years is nothing in geologic time. Planets in our galaxy have a wide range of ages, so it is possible that Strong AI could have been developed somewhere millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions of years ago. IOW, there has been a huge pool of time in which the Singularity could have occurred _somewhere_, and after it occurred, it would only need maximum 200,000 years to reach us (at half-light speed) in our galaxy and 5 million years if from a nearby galaxy. I don’t think humans are all that technologically advanced or even all that smart, but, even so, AI proponents tell us that the Singularity is near and inevitable. From that I conclude that a high percentage of intelligent species would develop the Singularity. If we grant that a handful of intelligent species should have evolved by a point of time 10 million years in the past, then I think we have to conclude that the Singularity–if possible at all–should have reached us by now. But you’re making a LOT of assumptions here, you’re assuming near magical and infallible machines. 1.Materials are basically infinite, how do you know this is true? You’re assuming that this won’t be a choke point, you can’t leave probes behind everywhere if the materials aren’t there. 2.The machines have a single minded determination to catalog every planet out there, why? I’m a curious person but I have not cataloged every plant species in my yard, there is a difference between curiosity and almost pointless work. 3.There isn’t some other reason, perhaps some distant probes decide they are sick of cataloging random dirt balls and decide to go AWOL. This causes a schism in the machine intelligence that leads to war, the exploring the universe thing takes a back seat. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/29 "2012-08-30T04:41:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Despite your objections, I’m definitely an agnostic about the issue of ET intelligence. With a sample of 1 there’s nothing we can’t tell about the prevalence of intelligent life (note that even here, it’s not like intelligent life appeared frequently, or that we have evidences that it tends to last long). Also the anthropic principle doesn’t help with the assumption that we aren’t alone. Yep, definitely can’t prove anything; can only appeal to intuition. I think it would be a really weird universe if we were the only intelligent life in it. > [@](#): > > A somewhat frightening explanation that I like : there are plenty of ET intelligences, but they stay silent.\*\* And there’s a reason for that \*\*:eek: I think you mean that intelligent life discovers some sort of technology that it can’t control and blows itself up. This is completely plausible, but it would function as another argument against Strong AI: to wit, that the extinction technology always arises before Strong AI could be developed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/30 "2012-08-30T04:42:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yes. But I am also arguing that that is also unlikely. There has been a huge pool of time in which Strong AI could have been developed and reached us. Sorry. Grude’s post wasn’t there when I started mine. You say it’s unlikely that they just haven’t got here yet, but how much more unlikely is that compared to the singularity being impossible? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/31 "2012-08-30T04:43:38Z")
The Fermi Paradox doesn’t prove anything so long as there are still solutions to the Drake equation where reasonable input values will result in solutions of \< 1. You don’t just need a planet in the habitable zone. It has to be a planet with the right composition of materials in the right volume to create an ecosphere. It has to orbit a star like the Sun. And it has to be a star that remains stable for the billions of years it takes for life to form. The planet has to be in a region of the galaxy relatively devoid of matter but with stars fairly rich in metals and other heavy elements. It has to survive for billions of years without colliding with some space junk or cooked from a nearby supernova or gamma-ray burst. If such a planet does exist, it then has to create a stable atmosphere for billions of years, life has to evolve, it has to become complex and intelligent to some degree. It may well be that the only locations in the galaxy that can feasibly harbor life are places like where we are - out in the spiral arms, or even just off the main clusters of stars in the arms into relatively uncrowded space. That would mean that only a small percentage of the stars in the galaxy could even be considered possible candidates for life before we even start to look at spectral type and all that. I think you can construct a reasonable solution to the Drake Equation that estimates the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy to be approximately one. So long as that’s the case, it’s a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/32 "2012-08-30T04:44:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m also not convinced by the argument about ‘billions of habitable planets’. There’s a difference between a planet being in the habitable zone and it actually being habitable. Even if it is roughly the same distance from its star as earth, a planet still needs the right atmosphere to constantly maintain the right temperature. It needs to have protection from radiation, ample supplies of water and carbon, and lots of other properties in order to support any life at all, to say nothing about intelligent life. To give another example, it has been argued that without the moon (which is an abnormally big satellite with an unusual origin) life wouldn’t exist because Earth orbit (and as a result climate, etc…) wouldn’t be stable enough when long durations are considered. If it’s true, and that a theoretically habitable planet needs also a large companion for life to appear and keep going it’s going to seriously reduce the number of planets with life. Fact is, we know essentially nothing about what’s needed for life to appear. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/33 "2012-08-30T04:46:44Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > The probe has to arrive at earth at some time yes? > > Therefore, for a universe where the AI singularity is possible, there is a period on Earth that is before the probe arrives and a period that is after the probe arrives. Let’s call them time-a and time-b respectively. > > For a universe where the AI singularity is impossible, the AI probe never arrives on Earth. > > You are saying that because there is no probe, we must be in the second universe, but how can you be sure we are not in time-a of the first universe? Why would that look any different to what we see now? Your parsing is correct, thanks. It is a totally probabilistic argument. It is _possible_ that we are the first or only intelligent species to evolve in the universe. I dealt with that above. Per your argument, it is _possible_ that Strong AI has been developed and just hasn’t reached us yet. But that is very _unlikely_, since the pool of time in which Strong AI could have been developed and reached us is so large. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/34 "2012-08-30T04:50:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m not getting your argument. If humans, right now, could develop trans-light-speed travel, I think you would agree that we would start exploring planets across the galaxy right away. We wouldn’t say, “Fuckit, we’re comfortable here on earth, that’s all that we need.” > > So why would Strong AI machines do that? Going to the center of the galaxy and soaking up the rays is equivalent to just sitting here on Earth and not doing anything. It’s pretty close in concept to the Strong AI that turns itself off or just sits there doing nothing. **Now that is a big assumption** , just learning that there is little for us to do across the galaxy does not lead us to turn ourselves off or do nothing, and neither our machines, there is plenty to do even in this poor area of the universe without leaving our solar system, and I see less reasons for artificial beings to go outside of the richer in energy and material areas of the center of the milky way. (If we were talking of biologically based AIs, I would see a reason for not going closer to the center as those areas are less hospitable for biologically based beings, but the argument here is that those beings we are talking about are artificial) And I agree with what \*\*grude \*\*says. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/35 "2012-08-30T04:54:01Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > . The probes themselves would contain Strong AI and resources for replication. There is no reason for the probe just to take a peek, shrug its shoulders, and take off. Rather, it would stay and continue to observe. Why? What if we are simply not very interesting? I mean, do you spend your time hanging around anthills, observing? Probably not, because there’s very little to be gained from studying such primitive creatures. Sure, a few humans study ants as their profession, but very few, because there’s so little useful info to be had from that process. Depending on how long Moore’s Law keeps going, it’s quite possible that any advanced species could figure out exactly what kind of life is on a particular planet simply by noting its star’s emission spectra, number/size of other planets, etc. Even now we can detect earth-like planets in other solar systems. How much better will we be at predicting what’s happening in a solar system from afar, if Moore’s Law continues for, say, another 100 years or more? I guess what I’m saying is, why would anyone, even a strong AI, bother leaving a home planet, if the conditions on other planets can be known simply through studying astronomy? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/36 "2012-08-30T04:55:49Z")
[quote=“grude, post:28, topic:633104”] But you’re making a LOT of assumptions here, you’re assuming near magical and infallible machines. Have you read the works of the proponents? _That’s_ how they describe the machines, more or less. The Singularity represents near-infinite intelligence. If there are schisms or wars, they would likely be over pretty quickly, since change occurs virtually instantly within the Singularity. > [@](#): > > 1.Materials are basically infinite, how do you know this is true? You’re assuming that this won’t be a choke point, you can’t leave probes behind everywhere if the materials aren’t there. I think there are prima facie enough materials. My guess is that they could build 300 billion probes out of materials in our own solar system, if not Earth itself. The probes would not require much energy. Most of their travel would simply be ballistic. Then, once they land on a planet (or asteroid or comet or anything), they could use whatever materials they found there. > [@](#): > > 2.The machines have a single minded determination to catalog every planet out there, why? I’m a curious person but I have not cataloged every plant species in my yard, there is a difference between curiosity and almost pointless work. Not every development of Strong AI would necessarily have this motivation. Some might take a look around and shut off, finding existence pointless. But it would only take _one_ Strong AI so motivated to cover the entire galaxy. I don’t see any a priori reason why such an AI would _not_ be developed. > [@](#): > > 3.There isn’t some other reason, perhaps some distant probes decide they are sick of cataloging random dirt balls and decide to go AWOL. This causes a schism in the machine intelligence that leads to war, the exploring the universe thing takes a back seat. This is possible, but again, there would only have to be _one_ single-minded, victorious AI to cover the galaxy. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/37 "2012-08-30T04:56:27Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I think you mean that intelligent life discovers some sort of technology that it can’t control and blows itself up. This is completely plausible, but it would function as another argument against Strong AI: to wit, that the extinction technology always arises before Strong AI could be developed. No, the idea is more along the line : there’s something terribly dangerous out there in the dark, cold, space, other civilizations are aware of it, but we aren’t. **Yet**. Just a kind of short horror story. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/38 "2012-08-30T05:00:24Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The Fermi Paradox doesn’t prove anything so long as there are still solutions to the Drake equation where reasonable input values will result in solutions of \< 1. > > You don’t just need a planet in the habitable zone. It has to be a planet with the right composition of materials in the right volume to create an ecosphere. It has to orbit a star like the Sun. And it has to be a star that remains stable for the billions of years it takes for life to form. > > The planet has to be in a region of the galaxy relatively devoid of matter but with stars fairly rich in metals and other heavy elements. It has to survive for billions of years without colliding with some space junk or cooked from a nearby supernova or gamma-ray burst. > > If such a planet does exist, it then has to create a stable atmosphere for billions of years, life has to evolve, it has to become complex and intelligent to some degree. > > It may well be that the only locations in the galaxy that can feasibly harbor life are places like where we are - out in the spiral arms, or even just off the main clusters of stars in the arms into relatively uncrowded space. That would mean that only a small percentage of the stars in the galaxy could even be considered possible candidates for life before we even start to look at spectral type and all that. > > I think you can construct a reasonable solution to the Drake Equation that estimates the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy to be approximately one. So long as that’s the case, it’s a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox. Hang on, Hoss. Our star is a very average star, except that it has a higher-than-average metal content (metal is necessary for technology, definitely, but not that uncommon in the galaxy). This means that our planet and our solar system are, quite likely, very average and run-of-the-mill as well. I grant you that stars that are far from the galactic center are probably better candidates, but that still probably leaves a few thousand planets capable of developing intelligent life, in this galaxy alone. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if we haven’t been contacted simply because we’re too average to be interesting, and/or because anything we do is completely predictable (from the POV of an advanced-enough species, i.e., one that has reached the end of Moore’s Law intact and stable) and not, therefore, worthy of study. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/39 "2012-08-30T05:01:20Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I think you can construct a reasonable solution to the Drake Equation that estimates the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy to be approximately one. So long as that’s the case, it’s a possible answer to the Fermi Paradox. This is reasonably stated. But to me, on a gut level, one implies at least a few. And we also have several nearby galaxies to throw into the mix. This is all, by the way, assuming that trans-light-speed travel is impossible. My gut says it _is_ possible, at arbitrary speeds (and Strong AI would find it if it were possible). If so, we have the entire _universe_ in which Strong AI could be developed. I think it’s highly implausible there are not many intelligent species in the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104/40 "2012-08-30T05:06:52Z")
1. The odds that we are the only intelligent life may be low, but that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Nor does it mean that we can’t be the first. Someone has to be the first, even when there’s a trillion contenders. 2. It’s possible that some technological endeavors - like FTL travel - are impossible, regardless of how smart you are. 3. It’s possible that all intelligent lives will self-destroy before creating strong AI. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-have-not-yet-encountered-extraterrestrial-strong-ai-machines-hence-the-singularity-is-impossible/633104.md?page=3)