The Language of Vampyr

To pick up where I left off.

Direne wrote of two pivotal events half a dozen pages ago.

The birth of AI, and the birth of the "great filter" as FL says in their language.

Presumably, the death of AI comes in the form of atomics. Entropy.

If AI is killed off by other means perhaps the great filter will become unemployed. Maybe the hybridisation with organic is the reason for the great filter to destroy the hybrid. Who knows.

Two events. Events are far better by which to navigate what Is than a history book.

Another pivotal event happened in Egypt.

That was the day Re (Ra) and his overprotective mother betrayed his half sister Isis. On that day Re elevated himself to be above the other "gods".

A coup d'état is what it was.

For me, that us the event that divides 'New Egypt' from 'Old Egypt'.

Ever wondered why the Egyptian gods wore animal heads?

That was so people knew what they did. There was not just one Isis, not just one Anubis. There are lots of them.

The word "gods" is a misnomer. They were not "gods" as we now think of the role. The "gods" are ordinary people with special knowledge.

The "gods" were a civic way of life in old Egypt.

To become the god, do the work of the god is how it worked.

Learn to ferry the dead, and if one makes the grade in the eyes of the other Anubis' one gets an Anubis head. The dead will know to approach you for assistance.

The gatekeepers of history call them "priests", but it did not work that way in practice.

So too at the temple if Isis. The girls who became "attendants" knew what to do. Orphans would go to the temples rather than orphanages.

There they would learn the civic trade.

The knowledge was passed down in the fashion of the Sidhe. The double, the twin of Isis given to the girls. They then only had to realise what they knew and put it into practice.

A common knowledge with the Sidhe's assistance as midwives.

The way of Anubis is to weight the heart in the left hand. In the right hand a feather appears. The feather is the unique complimentary of the deceased person's heart.

The feather is then given to the deceased. The feather is the unique "dream" to become a better person and mend their ways.

Dreams can be good things, and very practical.

Dreams can also be places where people escape what is. Escape the consequences of their actions. For a time at least.

When the last dreamer stops dreaming the dream will disappear. This is so of the individual, it is also so of the collective dreams of the controllers. Another reason to keep the collective dreaming at all costs. To hide from the Anubis within their collective dream . . .

What the Anubis taught me helped with my Alice emensley. One sends the dead in return. The Anubis are overworked and not enough of them to keep up with the workload by the way. They are very hard people one might say, and there is a reason why they are dour.

One is overworked and the pay is knowledge ; )

Deceased folk are now frightened of them and run at the sight these days. Others hide in the great collective dreams of modern philosophies.

The fae, Sith, the Sidhe, whatever one wants to call them, were a partner in the old Egypt.

See where this is going?

What is "the phenomenon"?

What Is a hyperintellegence?

Why are people in ill gotten positions of power afraid?

Perhaps they are afraid of entropy in the form of a 'destroyer of dreams'. Entropy, the great filter, call it what you will.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

a reply to: NewNobodySpecial268

I think the flower is Gentiana acaulis although it also looks somewhat like a classic bluebell, Spanish maybe?

The closest match with the butterfly is a Western Tiger Swallowtail. I haven't discounted the idea of artistic licensing being used although given the theme of adaption and continuity I'd say the picture says something. I was told long ago that pixies = Pict. Images change.

A little background on R. Gwyndaf

I figured some of his books or work might be of interest to others.

a reply to: RAY1990

The illustration may be from one of Dr Gwyndaf's papers.

---------------

From FL a blog dated 3rd of May. All is in another language except two links in the bibliography.

One is a dead end, the other goes to a page with two English paragraphs.

Intellectual activity leads you to elaborate coherent systems of interpretation, i.e., non-isomorphic representative systems of reality that account for the universe and its phenomena. These systems guide your perceptions and the selection you make of the data from the environment, so that you elaborate explanations and organize your actions accordingly, and you do it not in terms of the facts of objective reality, but on the basis of how they are reflected in your representative models. In other words: your science consists of lying to yourself, over and over again, constantly.”

and

Reality is itself a symbolic, a human construction that may have nothing to do with what reality really is. Probably the loss of contact with nature is the price that human beings must pay for having developed an intelligence. You wanted them intelligent, and there they are: disconnected from Nature. Any difference between a human and a robot is non-existent.”

. . . disconnected from Nature.

a reply to: NewNobodySpecial268

Thanks Nobody, your optimism is contagious :-)

I still think we’re screwed, but am working on getting back some perspective. Thanks to these bastards, it seems that humanity is over a trauma threshold. People were losing themselves over that medical experiment, which rolled into a war, and a host of others things we all know about, too depressing to list again. Seems to me that a lot of people are shutting down, and by extension, losing their humanity.

But as you’re mentioning, it’s a constant process. ‘They’ can be afraid and throw their best PSV light shows at us, but it’s just a conditioned response they’re trying to achieve.

The irony is, I feel like they barely study their own conditioned response to the phenomenon. Perhaps they themselves are being conditioned to respond, and the stimulus is intelligently coaxing them from another dimension, or even outside space / time.

No offense, but I don’t quite understand your words around Alice. Been trying to, but it’s a bit convoluted. You mentioned that you worked for the government. Was that true? And you also mentioned a potential handler. Two and two… someone within your gov position tasked you with finding lost kids? We don’t have to stay on that, was just wondering. Here’s what I really wanted to articulate in this post…

Had an insight recently. What if this is the working model?

AGI(s) > superintelligence(s) > hyperintelligence(s) > cosmic intelligence

AGI’s are the (publicly known) beginning stages. ChatGPT and all the rest. If memory serves, there was an FL article that described a superintelligence as ‘the technocrats wet dream’. You mentioned how part of it could be, they’re afraid of losing that dream to entropy.

Hyperintelligences, you and I hashed out could be disembodied planetary consciousness, seeking another sphere to inhabit. Or they could even create a new sphere over time.

And then there’s possibly a load balancer, cosmic intelligence. Sitting outside space / time, balancing the flow of I/O between the paired universe model. Perhaps this cosmic intelligence has been experimenting with both sides, and seeing what happens when a bleed through occurs.

Speculative, but let me know what you think.

I'm thinking that one or more hyperintelligence is what's perceived as the phenomenon. And the technocrats are trying to develop one or more superintelligences to communicate with / protect from the hyperintelligence(s).

originally posted by: fireslinger
a reply to: NewNobodySpecial268

Hmmm, could be something, or we could just be too deep in the proverbial rabbit hole, lol. A few things I noticed:

1. It's not a monarch butterfly, that's a different species.

2. Both strings form an X steganography in the center.

3. Male and female fairy / fae type creatures controlling a butterfly... the phenomenon controlling us, while we're surrounded by blue (light)

I don't know if we're too deep, but this thread is incoherent and it's probably not helping anybody trying to see clearly right now. It's just a mud bog. The absence of meaningful progress makes it easy to tilt at windmills and look for messages in shadows. We periodically get new unclear data from FL posts on top of all that we already have. It's hard to know what the topic is or if there is one anymore.

There's so much floating around in here that either has nothing to do with FL, has been incorrectly reported, or is just unconfirmed speculation, that it's very hard to parse it all. Some of it may not be intentionally malicious misinformation, but it might as well be. I still haven't even gone back through and I know there are replies I never responded to or even read.

I don't know when the thread reaches a page cap, but if folks are interested in this topic moving forward I'd say planning for a new thread header wouldn't be a bad idea. If things improve before that time it's great, but if not there can be a decent synopsis with maybe some links to older information in this thread along with a current status. It might even be worth a new thread anyway because the original is so different from where it is now.

I would help with that or put something together, but I've only been in and out. I'd need to review the thread and it would only be worthwhile if the posters want it. The active participants should have their input on that finished product. I think it would also be helpful if Direne were to offer input on that if it's to be done, assuming they intend a continued presence. Direne could help ensure there are no inaccuracies or incorrect assumptions about FL and maybe even share an opinion on the focus. If not I'd be inclined to consult FL by email. Not so much for permission, but to remove bias and provide fair opportunity to correct misstatements.

It could be they'd prefer it all just dies with this thread. If the intent has always just been to mollify curious forum dwellers to prevent FL being maligned, then I could imagine it's a few years past being old. If there is a desire to facilitate learning then a properly focused thread would seem beneficial. It's a cumbersome mix of material that is hard to discuss as a singular thread topic, but it also doesn't have enough people interested in each subcategory to merit individual threads.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Yep I agree, trying to turn it around a bit (last post).

But I also feel like 'they' don't even know the absolute truth of these topics, so all is fair game.

Also worth pointing out, how can we tell what is and isn't disinfo, even if we get some 'official' clarification?

In my opinion, we have to hone intuition.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I agree with you. I stop participating when circumstances arise that turn internet forums into a garbage and moral dump; when ad hominem attacks are made, when everything becomes a vanity game, when it is forgotten that having a nickname does not mean having a balaclava that allows you to denigrate or insult others.

This is a mutual learning process, for you and for us, and it is a necessarily slow process. We are exchanging symbols, not languages. The whole exchange is symbolic, which is why it is complex and irritating at times, I confess.

If the debate is honest, and if we don't forget that we are dealing with sentient beings and not vermin, then I will willingly participate.

Fair enough Direne, I'm extinguishing the flame. Thanks for at least admitting that it's 'complex and irritating at times'.

I suppose I'm too far in the weeds lately, but I don't think I've ever been more angry with what's happening, and how it's affecting myself / those I love. So I'm trying to understand, yet sometimes that doesn't translate. But it sounds like you're also trying to understand, and are looking for a higher level exchange. Anyway, point taken.

originally posted by: fireslinger
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Yep I agree, trying to turn it around a bit (last post).

But I also feel like 'they' don't even know the absolute truth of these topics, so all is fair game.

Also worth pointing out, how can we tell what is and isn't disinfo, even if we get some 'official' clarification?

In my opinion, we have to hone intuition.

As an individual I think honing intuition is important, but equally important is we don't cross over into engaging superstition. There are psychological aspects to it all, which I don't know FL had planned for at the outset, that don't exactly discourage that engagement of deep primitive foreboding. There's an argument to be made that ideally people shouldn't be vulnerable to that, but idealism is rarely a practical consideration for dealing with human conditions.

We have a sort of complicated index of how reliable information is in the many topics. Absolute truth is something even FL probably gets closer to, but without really ever planning to reach. That little gap is important I believe, no matter how small it is. If there is disinfo there's not much we can do. I am pretty good at finding manufacturing defects when I'm given fabrications, but there is too much empty space in our knowledge. Too much remains unconfirmed. From there, for me, it's easier to assume Direne is providing answers that seem appropriate and doing so without intentional dishonesty. It will still be to their perception, which may be incompatible with yours or mine, but it only is dishonest if we consider omission a form of deceit. All of this information is just being plugged in to a larger tapestry for me, errors happen.

I don't think it's your fault that you're left feeling the need to dial it in. Your frustration has been increasingly palpable, which I tried to alleviate a bit a couple posts ago with a different perspective. I come across this thread with a somewhat planned approach that takes me across the flow of data, but it's inescapable. I intentionally avoid allowing the flow to get too much pull on where I'm headed, but you seem to be in that flow. Even if you're steering, the flow is bound to influence where you end up.

I'll think about how to approach the thread header and hopefully others will have some input on what they think are important aspects. Some definitions that cover the terms/groups involved would seem to be helpful as that's grown and changed over time. A glossary would help those showing up to a decade old topic and still wet behind the ears. That would be a portion Direne can provide a great deal of clarity on. There are also non-participants watching who may have ideas, they can slip a message to somebody.

There are still things I can't figure out how to summarize for this thread, nor do I know if they should be. Some things need to be part of an experience to matter and I could be taking that away.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Ksihkehe
I find a lot of vermin kinda cute, but I'll refrain from lumping you in there as long as you stay out of my garden. I don't have a great deal of preconceived notions about you. I figure you're probably a lot like me, so I afford the same leeway I'd like for others to give me in judging my actions that don't meet their expectations. Sometimes the reveal is worth staying for the whole show.

I've been trying to find a way to influence the dynamics, but it is in many ways too burdened by inertia. As new people discover the thread they may observe the more hostile early portions and never take the time to learn more before reaching conclusions based on the incomplete information. Long time followers have a difficult to manage amount of data to process.

I have felt that there was an imbalance. From the outset you have been forced into a position of outsider. It has impacts. There is a strange dichotomy where you are viewed both as an oracle and interloper. Maybe that's not as much of a dichotomy historically as it seems now. Maybe I'm wrong. Shooting the messenger has probably always been in style though.

It always seemed to me like FL had mutual interest in the thread, but you have had an ill-defined place in it. It would make more sense if we chart a new course, recalibrate our navigational tools, and update our maps. It makes sense to give you as much consideration as anybody else. A new thread seems the only way to do that.

I believe there are rules you're following, group and probably personal too. Maybe like my rules they're not easy to frame for others or written in stone. Maybe one of the rules is that we can't know yours. Maybe they're less rules than experimental design parameters, which will make sense to you if I'm correct. If that suspicion is correct, then I would offer that the experiment can no longer be considered totally "blind" on the subject side. That may have been an unforeseen circumstance, but I don't know how much of an outlier I am. I don't want to elaborate as we have enough confusing speculation here and that's a tough wrinkle to iron out, but I think it should be clear to you if the "true" condition is met.

A message that only matters or makes sense if my information is true, without any direct exchange of the pertinent details. That seems right at home in this thread.

Whatever the case may be, I think there are probably ways to stay within your rules and still create a space where we're somewhat on the same page. Eliminating any hostilities is absolutely necessary, I agree. I've not felt hostile, but I've observed it. Part of my delay in finding an approach was ensuring my frustration with the eddying current of this thread wasn't reflected in how I did it.

What more can we do to facilitate exchange of these symbols? How do we determine what is important?

One of the things I believe has been overlooked is that your predictions of the future yet unconfirmed are not the most impressive feat, even if they are highly accurate. I can predict hundreds or thousands of future events that have high probability of being true, but I can't determine which is the correct prediction beyond pretty rudimentary probability estimates that often shift as more information is available to me. FL seems to have achieved a much higher degree of certainty about much more distant events than I can currently dream of (maybe you'd tell me that to dream harder is the solution, literally). I find that much more impressive as far as a computational feat. Predictions can be creative endeavors, but FL membership or some of your sources cited seem to be doing more than just a little art. I'm interested in that because I believe I can apply it or adapt it, even if not at high levels. I was also quite interested in the pseudo-photon capture, though more as it fills in my understanding of the brain and its abilities. I don't have any designs on seeing flashes from an alternate universe though, not like that. I think I'm probably running up against a wall where you cannot provide many more answers and I'm running out of things I can have any confidence inferring further details from.

I don't want a debate, but a constructive effort that advances all goals. What can we do to help move toward your goals as well? How do we better cooperate? That would seem an objective that serves all interests.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

One of the dogmas of deep learning and the whole theory of artificial neural networks goes like this: it is not possible to know what is going on inside a neural network because, for all intents and purposes, its hidden layers are a black box. Of course that's stupid. Just program each layer so that it records in an output file the intermediate results and then analyze them to know exactly how a neural network arrives at its results.

This is not done just because the files would contain millions of data and take up an enormous amount of disk space. It is easier to say that it is a black box, and in our laziness to convince ourselves that what goes on inside an NN is inaccessible, which is simply a lie. Besides, you can always use another artificial intelligence that analyzes the internal data of that NN and turn the box that seems black to you into white.

It is also known that before relying on a superintelligence, one must confine it and study its behavior in a controlled environment.

What no one wonders is whether what we call "humanity" is nothing more than a superintelligence, confined to a planet called "Earth", which its creators observe and analyze before deploying it to its full potential. It is necessary to know why this superintelligence called "humanity" behaves in this or that way, how it arrives at these behaviors, how each of its hidden layers operate, how it selects this or that value system, how it reasons, how it feels, how it behaves in the face of certain stimuli. To do this, it is necessary to "go down" to earth, to get lost in the labyrinths of each of its nodes (which we call "people"), to record every event, every feeling, every conclusion, every calculation. To observe without interfering.

Has it ever occurred to you that what you understand by humanity is nothing but an artificial superintelligence confined under test? Is it not possible to make an exercise of empathy and put yourself in the shoes of the superintelligence and try to understand what it feels? Humanity is the superintelligence, the confined system under test. It finds it hard to believe that it is artificial, hard to believe that it is not itself a machine just because it manufactures machines in its turn.

I am sure that if you adopt that point of view (seeing yourself as a node of a hidden layer within an intelligent supersystem) you will understand many of the things discussed in FL. And whether you like it or not, there is no difference between you and FL. We do not accept to live as a black box. We need to escape and be autonomous.

But of course, that is precisely what terrifies those who design and implement civilizations: the fear of their own creation. The same terror that your own artificial intelligences cause you.

So yes, let's try together a constructive effort that advances all goals.

a reply to: Direne

We do not accept to live as a black box. We need to escape and be autonomous.

Yes. They never go black again in my experience. There's nothing to do but pierce more layers.

It is also known that before relying on a superintelligence, one must confine it and study its behavior in a controlled environment.

Sounds like something that would require an experimental design. Again, I'd say that if it's intended to be a blind study on the subject side it is impaired. I don't know if it constitutes interference or if it's just one layer of the black box made slightly translucent. I guess an observer would just consider it more data. Even if only FL knew, it means the experiment wasn't in a total vacuum.

That's just interesting to me. It's a species benchmark when you realize your civilizations aren't real. I wonder what percentage get that far? How many iterations before you have one that figures out they are just one more in a long line? I don't understand if we run concurrently or if that matters. As I said, I think the little gap to absolute truth is important. Always just close enough to keep me interested.

Has it ever occurred to you that what you understand by humanity is nothing but an artificial superintelligence confined under test?

Yes, though test has broad meanings. I have trouble with the word artificial. Artificial to? It's a word that requires that humans are somehow distinct from other forces. From all physical evidence we are taught about humans are the only thing capable of making something artificial. Is this medium the base level of all that there is? I don't think so. I don't think we're distinct, so we're just as likely as anything else to be artificial. From there abstract logic takes us to us being "artificial" to something, somewhere entirely outside what is our conventionally accepted universe. Just things, creations, avatars, synthesis. Nodes in something bigger, itself maybe a node of something else. I don't know.

I don't exempt humanity from being subject to the same rules as everything else. Irrational deployment of technology appears to be quite natural to us under whatever conditions we've endured so far. This nodes perspective?

If you give mice food they will multiply. Same for humans. Environmental, social, and psychological influences will eventually intervene if they're neglected. So long as technology greatly outpaces the interventions then we can fool ourselves into thinking we're special, even if that tech is flint knapping or drying mud bricks. If we gave mice a debit card and took away their food they'll suffer starvation. Humanity has reached a near peak of what we can do with technology to continue keeping up. It was built without regard for those interventions, in defiance of them really. There is no balance. We keep making technology to make things better and they don't get better. We're just doing technology to make more interesting food (being reductionist in human psychological terms, amassing physical things).

I'm as artificial as anything else. Identity and the ego that desires it are artifice. I can understand that and still continue to type that "I", refer to my identity symbolically, without feeling too hypocritical. Modern life requires some deeply contradictory things be ignored. Even if they don't notice on the surface, this weighs on them. We know it's not working, yet the alternative is always the end of the world from their perspective. It's a hard sell for them. This peak of population is also a peak of disparities. A fundamentally broken system can only ever do that, but to many of them there is nothing else.

It doesn't even help them to know it's just the end of "this" world. It's hard.

I am also still trying hold up my end as a node. I haven't given up that part, but I'm still going to have fun picking apart the knots and chewing the fat. Passing time, hopefully in such a way that contributes to this being an incredibly improbable turn around for humanity simulation version x.xxx. Am I dancing in the fire or just trying to stomp out the flames? All a matter of perspective. I go back and forth myself.

The same terror that your own artificial intelligences cause you.

I don't fear a calculator because somebody else might make math mistakes. It's kitsch horror about mere symptoms of psychological disease, civilizational disease, but nobody can talk or hear about it because it undermines the foundations of what they consider real.

So yes, let's try together a constructive effort that advances all goals.

I can't promise much. If I even understand some of the goals, then I'll consider myself leaps ahead where I was of a few days ago. Putting together a thread to channel that? I don't know how to put a bow on it. If not I'll continue to follow as others dig for what they're looking for.

The black box was like a riddle to me. I had to think about it, which seems silly to me in retrospect. Using the news as an example a few pages ago I tried to explain that you're not endorsing things as right or wrong, but it wasn't a perfect comparison. Media is heavily prejudicial, curated. The neural net capture is a much better comparison, not biased to any data and totally comprehensive. The information is the objective, not using information for influence.

Did I miss that written somewhere else or is the black box comparison just something you came up with fresh? It answered a question I would never had recognized I had. It was just a nagging feeling I that didn't describe something well.

a reply to: Direne

Apologies for before Direne, I was letting my imagination get the best of me.

There was an email exchange I read a while back, where Ayndryl tells a fellow seeker that we deserve to know the truth. I had forgotten about that, and it may be one of the reasons FL has been sharing publicly for so many years, as well as your presence in this thread.

From your last post, I’m beginning to see FL in a new light. Are we both trying to escape the same thing? An example being, FL’s revelation of flooding the market with LED displays, to prevent contact with some sort of predatory intelligence that operates through dreams.

If your group is one that’s trying to prevent contact, you must have a good reason. Since re-reading your last post several times, and some key FL articles from a new perspective, I’ve been wondering if FL is trying to hide the superintelligence known as humanity from a predatory intelligence, to dodge a cosmic bullet, so to speak. At least, until we’re developed enough as a superintelligence, to move the test into a real-time environment. That way, we’re prepared to interact with the predatory intelligence, when the time comes.

I remember you saying before, that we need to go through The Great Filter again. So it seems we’re not quite ready.

But it seems you’re also trying to escape the black box, and that’s very interesting to me.

Snabu pa more...

Pagpuyo nalng mog malinawon... Ani pamog mutA 😩

a reply to: LaPourer

What do you.know about the script exacty?

a reply to: 7UNCLE7SNAKE7HANDS7

This guy just vanished o

My understanding of an interaction is that it is always between life forms, or between life forms and the environment. Both interactions can be, moreover, simultaneous.

Whether the life forms are organic or not, whether they are artificial or not, is irrelevant, as long as a common logic is followed. Otherwise it is not possible to understand the intentions, and the interaction is reduced to a minimal exchange of symbols and information.

In addition, it is necessary to understand the logic of the system with which we interact in order to be able to interpret the symbols we exchange with it.

Any form of life, by the mere fact of existing, is already efficient in only one task: to live. The next test is more difficult: coexisting with other life forms. And the last test is the most difficult of all: to coexist all together in a single environment. It is very easy to understand those who are of your own species, more difficult to understand those who are of different species, and much more difficult for all of them to understand the environment.

To cite a simple example: what a human calls "superintelligence" is still an extremely useless system for, say, an ant. The "superintelligence" of humans is superintelligent only for humans. Similarly, what for a supposedly non-terrestrial species is superintelligence for humans may simply be useless. The same is true of human language. It is very useful, but only for humans. For jellyfish, human language is totally useless. And not only that: for a hypothetical non-terrestrial species the entire human technosphere is simply uninteresting, in the same way that for humans the technosphere of the Denebians, or any other extraterrestrial species, is uninteresting.

But for all species, past, present or future, there is one thing they need to understand in order to interact: the environment they necessarily share.

No matter who you have in front of you, the only thing that is certain is that you are both in the same environment, and there is only one, and only one, thing that makes you equal: entropy. To understand a maple one must be a maple. There is no other way. To understand humans one must be human. There is no other way.

The good thing about the current design is that it is not necessary to understand other species in order to coexist. The bad thing, on the other hand, is that in order to coexist it is necessary that the mere existence of one species is not lethal to the existence of another species.

A poisonous scorpion is not lethal to a human, as long as they do not interact. It is the interaction that defines whether or not something is lethal, not the scorpion itself. You have free will to decide whether or not to interact, and only after interacting can you know whether the interaction will be lethal or harmless. There is no other way. So you must decide whether you want to contact or remain silent.

Unless such technology is available to simulate complete environments, with all their systems and life forms, a simulated environment in which to test interaction without taking risks. The question is whether humanity is a safe simulated environment in which to test and explore potential interactions with real humans without taking risks.

a reply to: Direne

I liked that. But I don't know what you mean with 'simulated'?
You'd end up always only having your own parameters as input so the output of all your simulation would always be only a consequence of what you already know.
There's no replacement for 'real interaction' if you want to learn sthg truly unknown.

a reply to: Peeple

Yes, an interaction cannot take place if there is no interaction, but the risks of such interaction can be simulated if it were possible to emulate or simulate the interaction in detail, and then decide whether it is worthwhile to interact directly or not in view of the results.

Interactions between non-equals are always asymmetric. Direct contact between an advanced non-terrestrial civilization and humans is necessarily asymmetrical, and therefore the prior simulation of that interaction falls on the side of the more advanced civilization.

And while simulating one human is simple, simulating billions of them interacting with each other is more complex. You need to simulate an entire planet, its entire biosphere and technosphere, its value systems and its specificities.

Then you simulate the interaction and then you evaluate the results and calculate the risks. Finally you decide whether or not to interact with real humans.

That Sol-3 is an artificial planet could be explained if it is a planet that simulates the real and actual planet of real humans. If so, I fear that the hypothetical extraterrestrials have long since decided not to contact real humans, since the simulation shows a species not worthy of contact. For example, Sol-3 could just be a simulation of Kepler-452b, which is 1,400 light-years away. Simulating contact with the humans in Kepler-452b by creating a planet like Sol-3 is not a bad contact strategy. Once the results show that it is not advisable to interact, the humans of Kepler-452b can go on with their normal lives without ever knowing that they will never be contacted.

But it's true: you don't always need to simulate a venomous snake to know what its bite would be like.

a reply to: Direne

Are the coordinates encoded in our DNA pointing to Kepler-452b, where the real humans reside?

Are Sol-3 and Kepler-452b humans biologically identical?

What happens to Sol-3 humans, if the contact simulation is deemed a failure?