I don’t understand where your confidence re Dyson swarm construction times is coming from. Definitely more than 20 years? Why? Not longer than 60? Why?
This is quite a large range, but yeah I get that this comes out of nowhere. The range I cite is based on a few things:
Anders and Stuart’s paper from 2013 about building a Dyson swarm from Mercury and colonising the galaxy. They estimate a ~36 year construction time. However, they don’t include costs to refine materials or build infrastructure, they estimate a 5 year construction time for solar captors, which I think is too long for post-AGI, and I think the disassembly of Mercury is unlikely.
So I have replicated their paper and I played around with the model a lot to look at different strategies, like disassembling asteroids instead, building the swarm a lot closer to the Sun, including costs for refining materials, and changing the construction time for each solar captor. This is what that range I cite is mostly based on, but I don’t want to share it publicly because (1) I’m still working on it and (2) I’m unsure about how to handle the potential info hazard associated with arguing that Dyson swarms are easier to build than previously thought.
I’ve also talked about the above with people who have spent many years researching Dyson swarms and similar megastructures, like Anders Sandberg and James Giammona, but I have no idea whether they would endorse the timeframe I cite.
So yeah, good point, that Dyson swarm construction time is not well justified within the post, and the timeline I cite should be taken as just the subjective opinion of someone who’s spent a decent amount of time researching it.
OK, thanks. My vague recollection is that A&S were making conservative guesses about the time needed to disassemble mercury, I forget the details. But mercury is 10^23 kg roughly, so e.g. a 10^9 kg starting colony would need to grow 14 OOMs bigger, which it could totally do in much less than 20 years if its doubling time is much less than a year. E.g. if it has a one-month doubling time, then the disassembly of Mercury could take like 4 years. (this ignores constraints like heat dissipation to be clear… though perhaps those can be ignored, if we are disassembling diverse cold asteroids instead)
I don’t think it’s infohazardous at all fwiw. This is part of a more general disagreement I have with your model of Stage 2 competition. I think you are right that dyson swarms are where the action is at, but I think that your framing is off. The exponential graph to think about is not the dyson swarm construction graph in particular, but the “Economic Might” graph more generally. If tech exists to build a dyson swarm by having self-replicating industry in space, then presumably the tech also exists to have self-replicating industry on earth, and basically everyone who has that tech will be in a race to boom their economies as fast as possible or else fall behind and face a huge disadvantage. A one-year gap in getting started will indeed be decisive, which is why there won’t be such a gap between factions that have the requisite technology (they won’t want to wait a whole year to start growing exponentially, that would be like the USA deciding to just… not grow their own economy for a whole century...)
I don’t understand where your confidence re Dyson swarm construction times is coming from. Definitely more than 20 years? Why? Not longer than 60? Why?
This is quite a large range, but yeah I get that this comes out of nowhere. The range I cite is based on a few things:
Anders and Stuart’s paper from 2013 about building a Dyson swarm from Mercury and colonising the galaxy. They estimate a ~36 year construction time. However, they don’t include costs to refine materials or build infrastructure, they estimate a 5 year construction time for solar captors, which I think is too long for post-AGI, and I think the disassembly of Mercury is unlikely.
So I have replicated their paper and I played around with the model a lot to look at different strategies, like disassembling asteroids instead, building the swarm a lot closer to the Sun, including costs for refining materials, and changing the construction time for each solar captor. This is what that range I cite is mostly based on, but I don’t want to share it publicly because (1) I’m still working on it and (2) I’m unsure about how to handle the potential info hazard associated with arguing that Dyson swarms are easier to build than previously thought.
I’ve also talked about the above with people who have spent many years researching Dyson swarms and similar megastructures, like Anders Sandberg and James Giammona, but I have no idea whether they would endorse the timeframe I cite.
So yeah, good point, that Dyson swarm construction time is not well justified within the post, and the timeline I cite should be taken as just the subjective opinion of someone who’s spent a decent amount of time researching it.
OK, thanks. My vague recollection is that A&S were making conservative guesses about the time needed to disassemble mercury, I forget the details. But mercury is 10^23 kg roughly, so e.g. a 10^9 kg starting colony would need to grow 14 OOMs bigger, which it could totally do in much less than 20 years if its doubling time is much less than a year. E.g. if it has a one-month doubling time, then the disassembly of Mercury could take like 4 years. (this ignores constraints like heat dissipation to be clear… though perhaps those can be ignored, if we are disassembling diverse cold asteroids instead)
I don’t think it’s infohazardous at all fwiw. This is part of a more general disagreement I have with your model of Stage 2 competition. I think you are right that dyson swarms are where the action is at, but I think that your framing is off. The exponential graph to think about is not the dyson swarm construction graph in particular, but the “Economic Might” graph more generally. If tech exists to build a dyson swarm by having self-replicating industry in space, then presumably the tech also exists to have self-replicating industry on earth, and basically everyone who has that tech will be in a race to boom their economies as fast as possible or else fall behind and face a huge disadvantage. A one-year gap in getting started will indeed be decisive, which is why there won’t be such a gap between factions that have the requisite technology (they won’t want to wait a whole year to start growing exponentially, that would be like the USA deciding to just… not grow their own economy for a whole century...)