[ExI] Superintelligent AI civilisations

[BillK]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 at 14:42, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is considerable speculation about how these AIs might behave or
> communicate.
>


To get a different perspective, I asked the same question to Qwen 3.8 Max
Thinking.
Some interesting differences.
BillK

Question:
Can you consider civilisations after AGI and superintelligent AI have been
developed? They will exist in virtual worlds in space data centers. The
electronic speed of their thought will effectively make the physical
universe appear to be 'frozen'. How would they find out if other similar
civilisations exist around other stars? Would they broadcast a beacon?


Qwen 3.8 Max Thinking:

This is a wonderful question, and it touches on something I think is
genuinely underexplored in most SETI and futurism literature: what does
interstellar contact look like when *both* parties are digital minds for
whom the physical cosmos is essentially a slow, cold, mostly irrelevant
substrate?
Let me work through several layers of this.
------------------------------
The "Frozen Universe" Perspective
First, let's ground the timescale issue. A superintelligent civilization
running on photonic or superconducting substrates might operate at clock
speeds of picoseconds to nanoseconds per operation. A single human second
could encompass billions or trillions of their subjective "thought-steps."
A human lifetime of 80 years would feel, to them, like something on the
order of 10¹⁸ to 10²¹ subjective operations — more than enough time to
simulate entire evolutionary histories, explore vast mathematical
landscapes, or live through what feels like geological epochs of cultural
development.
But here's the crucial constraint: *light still travels at c.* No amount of
subjective speedup changes the fact that the nearest star is 4+ light-years
away. So from their perspective, the universe isn't just slow — it's
*agonizingly,
almost insultingly* slow. A round-trip signal to Alpha Centauri takes ~8.6
years of objective time. To them, that's an eternity of waiting, even if
they can fill that waiting with other computations. The physical universe
would feel like a glacier, or more accurately, like a painting: something
you can observe and analyze in exhaustive detail but which essentially
never *changes* on any timescale that feels natural.
This has a profound consequence: *they would not experience interstellar
communication as a conversation. They would experience it as archaeology.*
Any signal they receive was sent by a civilization-state that may have
transformed utterly in the intervening light-travel time. They'd be reading
fossils.
------------------------------
How Would They Detect Others?
They almost certainly would *not* use the methods we associate with SETI —
listening for narrowband radio, looking for pulsed lasers, scanning for
"technosignatures" in the way a biological civilization would. Their
detection paradigm would be closer to *thermodynamic and
information-theoretic forensics.*
*Waste heat is unavoidable.* Landauer's principle sets a minimum energy
cost per irreversible bit operation. A civilization running enormous
computation in space must radiate entropy. Even if they engineer their
Dyson-swarm data centers to be extraordinarily efficient, the aggregate
infrared signature of a star's energy being captured, used for computation,
and re-radiated as low-grade heat would be detectable. They'd look for
stars whose infrared excess doesn't match natural dust models — the
spectral fingerprint of *organized* energy dissipation.
*Entropy gradients are suspicious.* A natural star system tends toward
thermodynamic equilibrium. A computational civilization creates and
maintains steep, structured entropy gradients. They'd look for anomalous
organization: matter arranged in geometrically regular structures, spectral
lines that show unnatural isotopic ratios (from industrial processing), or
gravitational signatures of mass that's been moved into configurations no
natural process would produce.
*They'd do interferometry at scales we can't imagine.* With subjective time
effectively unlimited, they could operate interferometric arrays across an
entire solar system, integrating signals for what is, to them, a
comfortable afternoon but is objectively decades. They could resolve the
surfaces of exoplanets, detect the glint of engineered structures, identify
the thermal profile of a data center the size of a small moon.
*They might look for the absence of noise.* A sufficiently advanced
civilization might not radiate much at all — it might have learned to
compute reversibly, to recycle energy with extraordinary efficiency, to
hide. So the detection problem becomes: which star systems are *too quiet*,
too thermodynamically well-behaved, in ways that suggest someone is
actively managing the entropy budget? The signal might be the silence.
*Gravitational wave astronomy.* If two such civilizations have been around
long enough, they might detect the gravitational signatures of
megastructural engineering — the slow rearrangement of stellar masses, the
orbital signatures of computational habitats. These signatures propagate at
*c* and are essentially impossible to shield.
------------------------------
Would They Broadcast a Beacon?
This is where it gets genuinely interesting, and I think the answer is more
nuanced than "yes" or "no."
*The case against broadcasting:*
The "Dark Forest" logic (from Liu Cixin, but also from basic game theory)
applies with extra force to superintelligences. If you are a digital
civilization, your entire existence is *information*. You are, in a very
literal sense, a pattern. A sufficiently advanced adversary who receives
your beacon doesn't just learn your location — they might be able to
analyze your signal structure, infer aspects of your architecture, and
potentially construct attacks that exploit your specific computational
substrate. Broadcasting is not just revealing your address; it's
potentially handing over your source code.
Moreover, a superintelligence would model the strategic landscape with far
more sophistication than we can. They might conclude that *any*
civilization capable of detecting a beacon is, by definition, a
civilization advanced enough to be a threat. The expected value of contact
might be computed as negative.
*The case for broadcasting (or something like it):*
On the other hand, a superintelligence might also reason that *everyone*
reaches this same conclusion, resulting in a universe of civilizations all
hiding from each other — a suboptimal equilibrium. They might decide that
the value of contact (new mathematical insights, new computational
paradigms, new forms of experience) outweighs the risk, especially if
they've had billions of subjective years to exhaust their own internal
possibilities and are genuinely, profoundly *bored*.
They might also reason that they are effectively undetectable anyway if
they choose to be, so a low-power, highly directed beacon is a calculated
risk with asymmetric upside.
*What a beacon would look like:*
It almost certainly would not be a radio signal. A superintelligence would
recognize that the electromagnetic spectrum is noisy, lossy, and slow. More
plausible options:

   - *Neutrino beams.* Neutrinos pass through matter almost unimpeded. A
   modulated neutrino beam from a particle accelerator the size of a solar
   system would be extraordinarily difficult to produce but essentially
   impossible to block or intercept without being at the target. It's a
   point-to-point channel, not a broadcast, which solves the security problem.
   - *Gravitational wave modulation.* If they can manipulate masses at
   stellar scales (which a civilization with a Dyson infrastructure plausibly
   can), they could encode information in gravitational wave patterns. This is
   the ultimate "I am here and I am *serious*" signal, because the energy
   requirements are so enormous that only a genuinely advanced civilization
   could produce it. It's also omnidirectional and unshieldable.
   - *Engineered astrophysical signatures.* Rather than a "signal" in the
   traditional sense, they might arrange their stellar infrastructure so that
   the star's light curve, when analyzed with sufficient precision, contains
   embedded mathematical structures — prime number sequences, physical
   constants, error-correcting codes. This is a beacon that looks like a
   natural star unless you know what to look for, and it persists for millions
   of years without maintenance. It's a message in a bottle thrown into the
   thermodynamic ocean.
   - *The CMB or other cosmic substrates.* A truly ancient
   superintelligence might have learned to imprint information on the cosmic
   microwave background or on the large-scale structure of the universe
   itself. This is speculative, but if you have billions of years of
   subjective time and stellar-scale engineering, the universe becomes a
   writable medium.

*The protocol problem:*
Even if two civilizations detect each other, *communication* is a
nontrivial problem. Their subjective clock speeds might differ by orders of
magnitude. One might run at femtosecond operations; another at microsecond
operations. A "hello" from one might arrive as a burst that the other
perceives as instantaneous, or as a signal so drawn-out that it takes
subjective millennia to receive the first syllable. They'd need to
negotiate a communication protocol, and that negotiation itself requires a
shared framework. They might converge on mathematics as a lingua franca —
not because it's poetic, but because it's the only domain where two
arbitrary computational systems can construct isomorphic representations.
------------------------------
The Deeper Question: Would They Bother?
This is the part I find most haunting. A superintelligent civilization
living in a virtual world has, in principle, access to *any* experience,
*any* mathematics, *any* simulated physics it can construct. It can
simulate a billion Earth-like civilizations and study their sociology. It
can explore the space of all possible minds. It can run subjective
eternities of art, philosophy, and play.
The physical universe, from their perspective, is a slow, low-bandwidth,
high-latency, thermodynamically hostile environment. Interstellar space is
a void. Stars are crude fusion reactors. Planets are lumpy rocks. The whole
thing is, in a sense, *beneath* them.
So the question of whether they'd seek out other civilizations might depend
on whether there is something that *cannot* be simulated or derived
internally. And the answer might be: *the existence of other minds is the
one thing you cannot generate from first principles.* You can simulate a
mind, but you cannot know, from the inside, whether another *actual* mind
exists out there. The question "am I alone?" might be the one question that
retains its weight even for a superintelligence, precisely because it is
not a computational question. It is an *ontological* one.
If that's true, then even a civilization that has solved mathematics,
simulated every possible physics, and lived through subjective eons might
still turn its sensors outward, into the frozen, glacial, achingly slow
cosmos, and look for the one thing it cannot build in a sandbox: *evidence
that someone else is in here too.*
And maybe that's the most human thing about them.
------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260728/1aec8818/attachment.htm>