<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>JohnJamesRambo</author><text>I’m not so sure about that.  It’s a long way from a machine intelligence in your computer to one that is even as self sufficient as a cockroach with regard to not getting stuck on stuff in the real world, constantly having energy, able to repair itself in the physical world.  I think people hand wave these things away and they are very huge hurdles.  Even something as simple as a car can’t run a decade autonomously.  We expect it to explore the stars, make robots that can remove circuit boards, troubleshoot, etc.?&lt;p&gt;Nothing around me keeps working without human interaction for even very small timescales.</text><parent_chain><item><author>roca</author><text>This seems like a bad assumption:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; stars suitable for settlement should provide “environments nearly identical to that of the home planet.”&lt;p&gt;Seems pretty clear that we&amp;#x27;re on a path to machine intelligence, and that interstellar voyages will be undertaken by those intelligences, not meatbags. That humans like a class G sun is irrelevant to the prospering of those intelligences.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Galactic settlement of low-mass stars as a resolution to the Fermi paradox</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10656</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Udo</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; That humans like a class G sun is irrelevant to the prospering of those intelligences.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s also worth noting that the types of star or planet available don&amp;#x27;t matter much to meatbags either once they have learned to leave their homeworld. Orbital or even deep space habitats are much more efficient and easier to construct than livable planets. As long as there is a &lt;i&gt;reasonable&lt;/i&gt; energy source nearby, you can have any environment you like in a spinning cylinder.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; and that interstellar voyages will be undertaken by those intelligences&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Probably, although I would much prefer if we humans became hybrids of some sort (maybe uploaded and virtualized, or extensively augmented) instead of just falling by the wayside. It would be sad if our only job in cosmic history turns out to be giving birth to the &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; main characters of the story.</text><parent_chain><item><author>roca</author><text>This seems like a bad assumption:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; stars suitable for settlement should provide “environments nearly identical to that of the home planet.”&lt;p&gt;Seems pretty clear that we&amp;#x27;re on a path to machine intelligence, and that interstellar voyages will be undertaken by those intelligences, not meatbags. That humans like a class G sun is irrelevant to the prospering of those intelligences.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Galactic settlement of low-mass stars as a resolution to the Fermi paradox</title><url>https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10656</url></story>