I thought you can’t send usable information via quantum entangled particles?

Yep. I’d do it in a heartbeat. These folks are heroes.

Planetary radar from earth emits a 10,000 light year bubble, but yeah, I get what you mean. If anyone were to detect it, would they even interpret it as a valid signal? And would we even still be here by the time they received it? Kinda grim.

Right, and even in that short time that’s still (give or take by a couple decades) enough time to be detectable by other life forms if the distances involved between our world and this one is anything to go by. It’s real close.

Plus, if we assume we’re not first (which I doubt) then life starting somewhere else, say 3.9 billion years ago, could mean ET emitting radio waves for 100 million years by now! A time/distance that makes this really look like you could reach out and touch it.

Ocean worlds are common + ocean world roughly every 120 light years => billions of ocean worlds with the potential for complex life

An octopus or something should be able to occasionally climb out of the waves and build a radio. Where is my Octopus version of Prairie Home Companion?!? Get on it you slimy weirdos.

Right, this result (if confirmed) makes either of those much more likely.

I refuse to believe ET doesn’t use radio for something though, even if they’re emitting some kind of signature on accident.

Really hope this is true, but to me, this would just create more questions than it answers wrt intelligent life. The Fermi paradox is still in effect, basically. If there is life that close to us (even single-celled), that implies the universe is absolutely lousy with life, and therefore we should be constantly picking up electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) from other advanced life. Yet we’re not.

As you say, hallucinating can be solved by adding meta-awareness. Seems likely to me we’ll be able to patch the problem eventually. We’re just starting to understand why these models hallucinate in the first place.

Anthropic’s latest research shows the chain of thought reasoning shown isn’t trustworthy anyway. It’s for our benefit, and doesn’t match the actual reasoning used internally 1:1.

Yeah! Love this channel.