"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.

---