If i am not misunderstanding then you are asking if aliens all fall into 2 categories, good explorers and evil colonizers.
When you put it this way it does seem like the equilibrium is in favor of the “evil colonizers” as the would have access to more resources given them a decisive advantage in the long run, not to mention that they have the “dark forest” option of destroying budding civilizations with long range weaponry, of course assuming physics permits that.
the “good explorers” would likely think of that (unless they are as dumb as we are right now) and switch to a more aggressive stance and use as much resources as they can safely use while securing their alien hosts (say dismantling every planet except the inhabited ones to build orbital defenses).
I think this will all come down to the equilibrium of defense vs offense, if it is much easier to destroy then to protect then the first evil coloniser would have a decisive advantage, like a fox in a hen house.
Otherwise we would just have a galactic stalemate with every civilization holding on to their chunk of the cosmos.
But again this decision would probably be made by something much smarter then you or i since the only relavent actors are the super intelligent ones and smart agents would likely converge on the same optimal strategy and just negotiate from there, after all no point in fighting the war if you can simulate the end result.
But you know what? Since we aren’t dead yet we probably not living in the hen house scenario.
Agreed. However, as I detailed in the last paragraph, this dilemma is also usable as an alignment target: the evil colonizer/the evil AI created by us will eagerly wipe the primitive races (for that matter, does this include us?), while the good explorer will respect the primitive races and try to protect them from the evil colonisers (and, upon reflection, of other threats like self-destruction?)
If i am not misunderstanding then you are asking if aliens all fall into 2 categories, good explorers and evil colonizers.
When you put it this way it does seem like the equilibrium is in favor of the “evil colonizers” as the would have access to more resources given them a decisive advantage in the long run, not to mention that they have the “dark forest” option of destroying budding civilizations with long range weaponry, of course assuming physics permits that.
the “good explorers” would likely think of that (unless they are as dumb as we are right now) and switch to a more aggressive stance and use as much resources as they can safely use while securing their alien hosts (say dismantling every planet except the inhabited ones to build orbital defenses).
I think this will all come down to the equilibrium of defense vs offense, if it is much easier to destroy then to protect then the first evil coloniser would have a decisive advantage, like a fox in a hen house.
Otherwise we would just have a galactic stalemate with every civilization holding on to their chunk of the cosmos.
But again this decision would probably be made by something much smarter then you or i since the only relavent actors are the super intelligent ones and smart agents would likely converge on the same optimal strategy and just negotiate from there, after all no point in fighting the war if you can simulate the end result.
But you know what? Since we aren’t dead yet we probably not living in the hen house scenario.
Agreed. However, as I detailed in the last paragraph, this dilemma is also usable as an alignment target: the evil colonizer/the evil AI created by us will eagerly wipe the primitive races (for that matter, does this include us?), while the good explorer will respect the primitive races and try to protect them from the evil colonisers (and, upon reflection, of other threats like self-destruction?)