For billions of years Earth has been filled with a great many small biological organisms. Each one is designed to not die, and to collect and process enough resources to make close but not exact copies of itself, copies which then must each search for and defend a niche wherein this story can be repeated.
Indeed, Robin says quite convincingly that there inevitably are pockets of expanding grabby civilizations, and that we will either spawn one or go extinct before one washes over us.
Different relative scales are implied nonetheless, Robin, if not by the wording here, by tenable consequences of highly capable civ-wide artificial intelligences with their own sovereign, or semi-sovereign, domains, each of which in turn could create many underling artificial intelligences each highly capable in their own sphere. It's not clear why the artificial life seems to be referenced partially by their different relative scales without it being made more explicit the natural power relations.
This matters because their internal organizations matter. And their internal organizations matter because they would matter to human-level intelligences and transitional transhumans, if not also their greater direct descendants.
As things are currently expressed, it would seem there's expected to be little place for humans or transhumanly aspirational humans. We're fairly expansionist and yet we have a place for zoos. If you think you may be telling us what we may not want to hear, then perhaps you think you could be suggesting that maximally grabby artificial intelligences either could or would likely have no (scaled-up) zoo for us. But this isn't obvious.
The article seems to equivocate over different scales of artificial life. It never quite clearly says that (1) a civ-wide artificial lifeform would be analogous to individual human lifeforms, the analogy being that both have high autonomy on their respective scales, and that (2) "highly specialized" and "quite inter-dependent" artificial lifeforms would be analogous to multi-cellular organisms, the analogy being that both kinds have low autonomy on their respective scales.
The article seems very unnecessarily confusing as a result. You're saying that you're telling us what seems most likely, but you're not clear on which scale of artificial life we're supposed to identify with more, which makes a big difference to whether or not you're "not telling us what we want to hear."
You say "Artificial life will live on and in a wide range of planets, stars, rocks, clouds, and volumes, and reorganize such things to make whole new places and things. Artificial life will grow faster, at least until the solar system is nearly filled." but artificial life won't necessarily be as prone to colonizing its surroundings as biological life. And looking at us human beings, the most advanced form of biological life we know of in many respects, we can and do control our reproduction, if anything demography is falling in many countries, world pop is predicted to fall by the end of the century (as detailed in Empty Planet, the book) due to rising living standards and women empowerment. So artificial life doesn't have to spread by design, as it will indeed likely be "designed" and "invited", as you say.
While not all artificial life may feel compelled to spread and colonize every nook and cranny of the galaxy, you will argue that some, or even a single one would be enough, and, in multiplying itself, it will outnumber and eclipse the other forms of artificial lives. But that contradicts what you've yourself argued about before, the emptiness of the sky, "where are they?", which you elegantly hypothesize could be explained by the fact that life appears rarely and so hasn't appeared in too many places, and wherever it has appeared, especially if any appeared nearby, it ended up being indeed "governed" and centralized so as to de factor ban visible extensive colonization.
So it seems hard to both argue that artificial life would spread everywhere and at the same time that life is designed, directed, invited, while having an empty sky (the empty sky meaning indeed likely centralized governance)
When would a swarm of artificial devices, say a swarm of drones, become artificial "life"? The unmanned probes that we already launch into space are advanced, specialized, informed, invited, designed, governed, and owned. They don't typically reproduce but some are capable of harnessing energy to sustain themselves, for example through solar panels. Sunlight is their food. If drones could somehow make other drones, then would they constitute "life"?
If so, then I can understand your confidence that such devices/life will fill the solar system, as I'm sure our descendants will deploy all sorts of devices with varying degrees of autonomy. I don't know that they will ever create devices with "consciousness" though, nor have a way of determining that they have.
Indeed, Robin says quite convincingly that there inevitably are pockets of expanding grabby civilizations, and that we will either spawn one or go extinct before one washes over us.
s/Thought the created thing/Though the created thing/
Different relative scales are implied nonetheless, Robin, if not by the wording here, by tenable consequences of highly capable civ-wide artificial intelligences with their own sovereign, or semi-sovereign, domains, each of which in turn could create many underling artificial intelligences each highly capable in their own sphere. It's not clear why the artificial life seems to be referenced partially by their different relative scales without it being made more explicit the natural power relations.
This matters because their internal organizations matter. And their internal organizations matter because they would matter to human-level intelligences and transitional transhumans, if not also their greater direct descendants.
As things are currently expressed, it would seem there's expected to be little place for humans or transhumanly aspirational humans. We're fairly expansionist and yet we have a place for zoos. If you think you may be telling us what we may not want to hear, then perhaps you think you could be suggesting that maximally grabby artificial intelligences either could or would likely have no (scaled-up) zoo for us. But this isn't obvious.
I'm not telling you about particular scales because I don't know about particular scales.
The article seems to equivocate over different scales of artificial life. It never quite clearly says that (1) a civ-wide artificial lifeform would be analogous to individual human lifeforms, the analogy being that both have high autonomy on their respective scales, and that (2) "highly specialized" and "quite inter-dependent" artificial lifeforms would be analogous to multi-cellular organisms, the analogy being that both kinds have low autonomy on their respective scales.
The article seems very unnecessarily confusing as a result. You're saying that you're telling us what seems most likely, but you're not clear on which scale of artificial life we're supposed to identify with more, which makes a big difference to whether or not you're "not telling us what we want to hear."
I believe Robin is saying that, if our civilization survives, he expects that to change.
If we survive, we'll be a major local (~500m ly) exception to what has been to case to date.
You say "Artificial life will live on and in a wide range of planets, stars, rocks, clouds, and volumes, and reorganize such things to make whole new places and things. Artificial life will grow faster, at least until the solar system is nearly filled." but artificial life won't necessarily be as prone to colonizing its surroundings as biological life. And looking at us human beings, the most advanced form of biological life we know of in many respects, we can and do control our reproduction, if anything demography is falling in many countries, world pop is predicted to fall by the end of the century (as detailed in Empty Planet, the book) due to rising living standards and women empowerment. So artificial life doesn't have to spread by design, as it will indeed likely be "designed" and "invited", as you say.
While not all artificial life may feel compelled to spread and colonize every nook and cranny of the galaxy, you will argue that some, or even a single one would be enough, and, in multiplying itself, it will outnumber and eclipse the other forms of artificial lives. But that contradicts what you've yourself argued about before, the emptiness of the sky, "where are they?", which you elegantly hypothesize could be explained by the fact that life appears rarely and so hasn't appeared in too many places, and wherever it has appeared, especially if any appeared nearby, it ended up being indeed "governed" and centralized so as to de factor ban visible extensive colonization.
So it seems hard to both argue that artificial life would spread everywhere and at the same time that life is designed, directed, invited, while having an empty sky (the empty sky meaning indeed likely centralized governance)
just some thoughts...
What can be said about the well-being of conscious entities in such a future?
I don't see much value in trying to draw a sharp line.
When would a swarm of artificial devices, say a swarm of drones, become artificial "life"? The unmanned probes that we already launch into space are advanced, specialized, informed, invited, designed, governed, and owned. They don't typically reproduce but some are capable of harnessing energy to sustain themselves, for example through solar panels. Sunlight is their food. If drones could somehow make other drones, then would they constitute "life"?
If so, then I can understand your confidence that such devices/life will fill the solar system, as I'm sure our descendants will deploy all sorts of devices with varying degrees of autonomy. I don't know that they will ever create devices with "consciousness" though, nor have a way of determining that they have.