Our garden in 2016 with Clare

 

It's the anti-Versailles!

"Can't work with concepts"

From OpenArt

“Speculative Encounters with Advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Framework for Rigorous Analysis”

Except that it wasn't.

---

In an attempt to avoid the well-known Pollyanna-lobotomization of mainstream LLMs, I asked Gemini to adopt the persona of a Professor of Evolutionary Ecology (with a particular interest in Xenobiology). I said this professor was known for lack of sentiment and a strong aversion to wishful thinking. He specialised in clear assumptions and rigorous, logical deduction.

Gemini agreed to be that person.

---

I then quizzed my ‘professor’ about technological aliens: discuss their motivations; describe their options for interstellar travel (technology vs. self-modification); indicate their likely response to humanity on arrival in our solar system.

Reader, I was hoping for the creative application of evolutionary theory to these scenarios (expansionist top predator goes forth...). I wanted informed scenarios built on plausible assumptions and held together by rigorous logic.

I was hoping to learn something. Instead I got the dialogue summarised below at the end. 

Try to stay awake!

---

For me this says something important about what LLMs actually do. They may well build sophisticated conceptual hierarchies, abstracting and generalising over their vast corpus of training material. But in their current architecture, they are not operating at that conceptual level. It's still rote learning.

It's ‘concrete to abstract to concrete’, not ‘concrete to abstract to abstract to concrete’ - as human experts do. It's like trying to learn maths or physics by reading the textbooks but never doing any of the questions.

I noticed the same with maths prompts: the LLMs have the data, have synthesised abstract concepts, but do not reason coherently at that abstract level. So they make rookie errors all the time.

That's why they're not smarter than us yet, not superhuman in extended disciplines and wider culture. Less reading and more doing, please!

---

This is how Gemini summarised our interaction: Pollyanna is never far away.

## Summary of our Discussion: Encountering Advanced Extraterrestrial Intelligence

While encountering advanced extraterrestrial life remains hypothetical, exploring potential scenarios fosters critical analysis. We discussed the limitations of categorizing ET encounters as "biological" or "technological," acknowledging the vast unknown and the need for evidence-based discourse.

Motivations for interstellar travel were explored, ranging from resource acquisition to exploration, while acknowledging the difficulty of applying Earth-centric evolutionary concepts to understand alien motivations. We then examined sending probes and living organisms, recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of each approach.

Shifting the focus to potential collaboration, we acknowledged the limitations of attributing "inherent benevolence" to ET behavior. Instead, we explored scenarios where collaboration might be strategically advantageous, primarily when resources are complex, fragile, or costly to acquire unilaterally. However, the discussion emphasized the inherent fragility and uncertainty of such cooperation due to potential shifts in power dynamics, unforeseen circumstances, and internal conflicts.

In conclusion, while collaboration might hold some potential, it's crucial to maintain a critical and balanced perspective, acknowledging the vast unknown and focusing on logical deduction rather than wishful thinking.

**Recommendations:**

1. **Continued scientific exploration** is essential.

2. **Critical and evidence-based approaches** are necessary.

3. **Acknowledge the limitations of our understanding** to foster honest discussion.

4. **Hypothetical scenarios** can be valuable thought exercises.

---

LLMs have battered my blogging!

In the old days, I would have an idea, develop it, and write it up as a post here. 

Now: I have an idea, I type it into Gemini which writes the blog post... and I don't post it here.

What value do I add when everyone has access to an LLM in 'God-mode'?

In future, what you'll get here will be either some very idiosyncratic posts indeed - thoughts not encompassed by the bland LLM summation of the collective wisdom of the world-wide web - or something very personal indeed, probably involving cats.

---

Here we go.

1. I am being ambushed as I get up by puss-puss. She demands I scratch her head and also rub deep inside her ears. How disgusting is that?! I have to wash my hands before I go downstairs!

2. A slightly edited blog post I asked Gemini to write for me on this topic: 

"Write a blog post of less than 650 words analysing the Vatican's dilemma with scientific research such as physics, evolutionary biology and in particular research into the Historical Jesus.

Make the point that there appear to be limits in modifying or reinterpreting Biblical scripture and theology when faced with the challenge of non-sacralised content from non-Catholic sources. How are these limits determined and are there absolute barriers?"

---

Gemini's blog post

"The Vatican and the Tightrope Walk: Navigating Science and Scripture

The Vatican, as the center of the Catholic Church, faces a unique challenge: reconciling the ever-evolving world of scientific discovery with the timeless truths enshrined in its scriptures and theology. This tightrope walk is particularly evident in fields like physics, evolutionary biology, and even historical research on the figure of Jesus.

The Church's position on science has undergone a gradual shift throughout history. While initial reactions to revolutionary discoveries were often cautious or even hostile, the modern Church acknowledges the validity of scientific progress. Pope John Paul II, for example, famously declared that "faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

However, when scientific findings seem to contradict scripture, the Church faces a dilemma. Take, for example, evolution. While accepting the reality of biological change, the Church insists on its compatibility with the doctrine of creation. This necessitates an intricate interpretation of Genesis, often drawing on allegorical readings or theological frameworks to bridge the gap.

Similarly, historical research on the life and teachings of Jesus can challenge established narratives. The discovery of non-canonical gospels, for instance, raises questions about the "true" Jesus, potentially contradicting the Gospels accepted by the Church. Reconciling these findings requires careful analysis, distinguishing between historical fact and theological interpretation.

The limits of modifying or reinterpreting scripture and theology are determined by a complex interplay of factors. Firstly, the core doctrines of the Church, like the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, are considered immutable. Secondly, the historical and literary context of scripture plays a crucial role in interpreting its meaning. Finally, the interpretations of Church authorities and theologians throughout history contribute to a cumulative understanding of faith.

However, absolute barriers are difficult to define. Science constantly evolves, and new discoveries can necessitate re-evaluations of established interpretations. Additionally, theological understanding itself is a dynamic process, with ongoing dialogue between scholars and believers. This leaves room for adaptation, but within certain boundaries.

The Vatican's approach is often characterized as cautious and deliberate. It seeks to harmonize scientific findings with scripture, finding common ground wherever possible. When contradictions seem insurmountable, it emphasizes the distinct realms of faith and reason, asserting that they ultimately lead to the same truth from different perspectives.

This balancing act is not without its critics. Some argue that the Church is too rigid, clinging to outdated interpretations in the face of scientific evidence. Others believe it compromises its core values by bending theology to accommodate secular knowledge. Ultimately, the Vatican's position reflects its unique role as a steward of both faith and reason. It strives to remain faithful to its tradition while engaging with the ever-changing world." 

---

Comment: it's a bit bland and wordy, and bends over backward not to offend anyone but there's a core of interest. As they say: I didn't have time to make it shorter.