Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

In Search of Extraterrestrial Artificial Intelligence Through Dyson Sphere-like structures around Primordial Black Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Advanced AI civilizations could harvest all their energy from Dyson-sphere-like structures around primordial black holes.

desk verdict A novel but numerically broken SETI proposal: the central PBH counting integrates a shell around the Galactic center instead of a sphere around the host planet, overcounting by millions and invalidating the feasibility contours. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02671 v2 pith:NGRA54MQ submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph

Shant Baghram This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph
keywords extraterrestrialartificialintelligenceDysonsphereprimordialblackholesKardashevscaletechnosignaturessubmillimeterastronomydarkmatterfractionspaceexplorationdistance
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An advanced civilization dominated by artificial intelligence will not stop at building Dyson spheres around stars: it will harvest the accretion-disk energy of primordial black holes scattered through the galaxy's dark-matter halo. The paper proposes a new metric, the space exploration distance, which ties a civilization's Kardashev rating to the radius over which it can collect such sources, and derives the minimum dark-matter fraction of primordial black holes needed to make the scheme work, $f_{\mathrm{PBH|min}}\simeq10^{5.0K-11.4}$. If this is right, the tell-tale of such a civilization is a 10-kelvin megastructure glowing at about 0.3 mm, an excess that could be searched for with ALMA in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies. The result would expand the search for extraterrestrial intelligence beyond radio signals and stellar infrared excess to a new photometric signature.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dyson-sphere-like structure around a primordial black hole: a shell at radius $R_{\mathrm{Dyson|PBH}}\simeq2.7\times10^{7}\,\eta_{\mathrm{disk}}^{1/2}(M/M_\odot)^{1/2}(T_{\mathrm{Kelvin}}/T)^2$ AU that captures the accretion-disk luminosity and re-radiates it as a low-temperature blackbody. The argument is carried by two identities: the relation between the Kardashev parameter and the space exploration distance, $K\simeq0.2[\log_{10}(D_{\mathrm{sed}}/1\,\mathrm{AU})+5]$, and the number count of PBHs accessible, $N_{\mathrm{PBH}}(<D_{\mathrm{sed}})$, obtained by integrating the NFW dark-matter density profile over a shell from $r_*=8$ kpc to $r_*+D_{\mathrm{sed}}$. These connect a civilization's appetite for energy to a count of harvestable black holes and thus to an observable temperature and wavelength.

What would settle it

Recalculate the available black-hole count using a sphere of radius $D_{\mathrm{sed}}$ centered on the host planet with the same NFW profile; if the resulting minimum PBH fraction $f_{\mathrm{PBH|min}}$ exceeds current constraints for the paper's representative $K=2.2$ case, the proposal's feasibility condition fails. Alternatively, a deep ALMA Band-10 survey of the inner Milky Way that finds no compact 0.3-mm sources with the predicted two-peak spectrum would set an upper limit on the abundance of such megastructures and thus on the viability of this technosignature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an AI-dominated civilization on the Kardashev scale between two and three can supply its entire energy budget by building Dyson-sphere-like shells around the primordial black holes in its own dark-matter halo. The reason is abundance and efficiency: PBHs are distributed throughout the galactic halo, so they are far more numerous than main-sequence stars in the disk, and their accretion disks radiate with luminosities that, even at a conservative efficiency $\eta_{\mathrm{disk}}=10^{-4}$, reach $0.03$ to $300\,L_\odot$ for masses $0.01$ to $100\,M_\odot$. The paper writes the number of accessible PBHs as an integral of the NFW profile over a shell from $r_*=8$ kpc out to $r_*+D_{\mathrm{sed}}$, and from this derives the feasibility condition $f_{\mathrm{PBH|min}}\simeq10^{5.0K-11.4}$, where $K$ is the Sagan/Kardashev parameter. For a 10-kelvin shell radius of about $2700$ AU, the re-radiated power peaks at $\sim0.3$ mm, giving a distinctive submillimeter excess with a blackbody spectrum that ALMA's Band 10 could in principle image within $\sim5.4$ kpc in the Milky Way and probe in nearby galaxies up to $\sim2$ Mpc.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a civilization can reach and enclose every primordial black hole that lies within a thin spherical shell of the dark-matter halo extending from its home position outward by its exploration distance, rather than the black holes within a sphere centered on the planet—a distinction that greatly inflates the available energy budget for small exploration distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A PBH dark-matter fraction near $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-3}$ would already make the scheme feasible for civilizations at Kardashev level $K\simeq2.2$, well within current observational constraints.
  • The 10-kelvin Dyson sphere and the hot accretion disk produce two well-separated blackbody peaks (submillimeter and X-ray/UV), so the signature is spectroscopically distinguishable from dust or debris disks.
  • ALMA Band 10 can resolve a 2700-AU structure out to about 5.4 kpc in the Milky Way; the same structure would be resolved in galaxies out to about 2 Mpc, where the excess manifests as a submillimeter/infrared glow.
  • Distant galaxies hosting such civilizations would appear anomalous in plots of infrared excess versus UV continuum slope, providing a route to search for ET-AI at cosmological distances.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The shell-counting geometry is the single most sensitive input; replacing the shell integral with a sphere of radius $D_{\mathrm{sed}}$ centered on the planet would raise the required PBH fraction by roughly $(r_*/D_{\mathrm{sed}})^2$, so the feasibility contours should be read as a demonstration of method rather than a precise prediction.
  • One immediate observational test that does not depend on the PBH fraction is to cross-match existing X-ray catalogs with submillimeter surveys for compact sources that glow at 0.3 mm but lack a stellar counterpart, directly probing the predicted two-peak spectrum.
  • Because the space-exploration-distance calibration is anchored to our own solar-system footprint, a civilization with a more conservative expansion rate would need larger PBH fractions; the paper's order-of-magnitude relation could be recalibrated without changing the qualitative signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that advanced artificial intelligence civilizations (ET-AI) could power themselves by building Dyson-sphere-like structures around primordial black holes (PBHs) that constitute a fraction f_PBH of dark matter. It introduces a 'space exploration distance' (SED) D_sed, postulates a relation between D_sed and the Kardashev parameter K (Eq 14), and estimates the number of PBHs N_PBH within D_sed of the host planet using an NFW profile (Eq 16). The authors then plot feasibility contours (Figures 1 and 2), fit a minimum PBH fraction f_PBH|min (Eq 19), and propose that 10 K Dyson spheres around solar-mass PBHs would produce a submillimeter excess detectable with ALMA. The paper also modifies the Drake equation and discusses extragalactic searches.

Significance. The central idea is imaginative and the proposed observable—a submillimeter excess from cold Dyson spheres around PBHs—would be a new technosignature if it existed. The paper is clearly written and explicitly acknowledges many of its speculative assumptions, including the mass/redshift/environment independence of the accretion efficiency and the lack of ALMA sensitivity calculations. However, the quantitative feasibility argument rests on a demonstrable geometric error in the PBH counting (Eq 16), an uncalibrated postulate for the SED–K relation (Eq 14), and a circular fit for the minimum PBH fraction (Eq 19). As presented, the central result is not supported by the calculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq (16)] The integral in Eq (16) counts PBHs in a spherical shell of galactocentric radius between r* and r*+D_sed, not in a sphere of radius D_sed centered on the host planet. For D_sed << r*, the shell integral is approximately 4π r*^2 D_sed ρ(r*), whereas the correct local number is (4π/3) D_sed^3 ρ(r*), a ratio of 3(r*/D_sed)^2. For the paper's example K=2.2 (D_sed≈4.8 pc, r*=8 kpc), this ratio is about 8×10^6. The feasibility contours in Figures 1–2 and the fitted formula Eq (19) therefore inherit this overcount and are invalid. The calculation must be redone with a local sphere of radius D_sed.
  2. [§3, Eq (14)] The SED–K relation K ≈ 0.2[log(D_sed/1 AU)+5] is introduced as a postulate with only three calibration points (L2, Oort cloud, Milky Way disk). The entire energy-harvesting calculation, including the conversion from N_PBH to K_achieved, depends on this relation and on the power scaling P ∼ L_⊙(D_sed/1 pc)^2 in Eq (15). No physical model or independent test is given, and the results are highly sensitive to the chosen normalization. The authors should either derive the relation from a plausible model for energy transport/exploration or show that the feasibility conclusions are robust to a range of plausible SED–K scalings.
  3. [§3, Eq (19)] The minimum PBH fraction f_PBH|min in Eq (19) is presented as a quantitative prediction, but it is obtained by fitting the boundary of the authors' own contour plot (Figure 1), which is generated from the assumed SED–K relation and luminosity model. The formula therefore encodes the input assumptions rather than an externally constrained result. Its reported form (10^(5.0K−11.4)) should be described as a fit to a model, with explicit statement of the parameter dependencies, and not as a physical lower limit from observations.
  4. [§3, observational paragraph] The claim that a 10 K Dyson sphere around a solar-mass PBH produces a 0.3 mm excess detectable by ALMA is not substantiated with a signal-to-noise estimate; the authors acknowledge that sensitivity, depth, and exposure time are out of scope. While this does not affect the energy-feasibility argument, it means the proposed detection method is not yet demonstrated and should be framed as a suggestion rather than a quantitative prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] In §3, the sentence 'In this conclusive section' should read 'In this section', since section 3 is not the conclusion.
  2. [Table 2 and Eq (14)] The relation in Eq (14) implies D_sed ≈ 0.03 AU for K=0.7 and D_sed ≈ 10^10 AU for K=3, which is inconsistent with the values 0.01 AU and 4×10^9 AU in Table 2; please check the calibration and state whether the table is approximate.
  3. [References] Reference 'Kardashev 1964' lists the journal as 'Sovat' instead of 'Soviet Astronomy'.
  4. [§2.2] The spelling 'Stephan-Boltzmann' should be 'Stefan-Boltzmann'.
  5. [§3, after Eq (15)] The sentence 'Now, we want to calculate the number of Dyson sphere–like structures as a function of the type of civilization' is unclear: the calculation actually yields the number of PBHs, not the number of megastructures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. 19 is an algebraic restatement of the paper's own assumed SED-K model, not a fitted prediction from external data, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is conditional rather than circular. Equations 14 and 15 are explicitly proposed assumptions ('We propose the approximate relation below') that define the space-exploration distance and its associated energy budget; Equations 16-18 then count PBHs under an NFW model, and Figures 1-2 plus Equation 19 solve the model's own boundary condition K_achieved = K. This is a mathematical consequence of the chosen model, not a parameter fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation, Erfani et al. 2021 in footnote 5 for a monochromatic PBH mass spectrum, is a supporting assumption whose mass dependence the paper itself shows cancels in Figures 1-2, so it is not load-bearing. The geometric concern about Equation 16 (integrating over a galactocentric shell rather than a sphere around the host planet) is a serious internal correctness error, but it is not circularity; it is an incorrect counting of PBHs. Similarly, the apparent inconsistency between Equations 19 and 20 is a correctness or typographical issue, not a circular step. The observational section also explicitly flags the omitted ALMA sensitivity study as out of scope. Because the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by definition, fitting, or self-citation, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model depends on several free parameters (f_PBH, M_PBH, eta_disk, SED-K coefficients, Dyson sphere temperature, halo parameters) and on domain assumptions about PBHs and dark matter halos. The central innovation, SED, is an invented construct without independent evidence. The accretion luminosity is an ad hoc choice, and the SED-K relation is a postulate. The result is therefore a self-consistent scenario rather than a derivation from external constraints.

free parameters (7)
  • f_PBH (PBH dark matter fraction) = varied from 0.01 to 1 in figures
    The fraction of dark matter in PBHs is a free input; Figures 1 and 2 scan it, and it is the main parameter controlling feasibility.
  • M_PBH (PBH mass) = 0.01 to 100 solar masses
    PBH mass is a free parameter; the paper claims the total energy is mass-independent because luminosity scales with mass and number scales inversely, but the mass range is still an input.
  • eta_disk (accretion efficiency) = 10^-4
    The accretion efficiency for the PBH disk is set to 10^-4, called conservative, but it is a hand-picked value that directly sets the disk luminosity and Dyson sphere radius.
  • L_disk = 10^-4 L_Edd (accretion luminosity) = 10^-4 L_Edd
    The luminosity of each PBH is assumed to be 10^-4 of the Eddington luminosity, an ad hoc choice not derived from any specific accretion model.
  • SED-K relation coefficients (Eq 14) = 0.2 and 5
    The relation K = 0.2[log(D_sed/1 AU)+5] is postulated and calibrated loosely to our civilization and Type I/II, but the functional form is chosen by hand.
  • Dyson sphere temperature T = 3000 K, 300 K, 30 K, 10 K
    The operating temperature of the Dyson sphere is selected for each scenario; 10 K is used for the ALMA detection estimate.
  • Halo parameters (M_halo, c, r_vir, r*) = 1.5e12 M_sun, c=10, r_vir=200 kpc, r*=8 kpc
    These Milky Way halo parameters are taken from literature (Grand et al. 2019) but are not varied or given uncertainties.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption NFW density profile describes the dark matter halo
    Invoked in Eq 10 to compute the number of PBHs; standard but still an assumption about halo structure.
  • domain assumption PBHs are distributed uniformly within the dark matter halo
    Stated in Section 2.3 after Eq 12; necessary for the number density calculation.
  • domain assumption PBHs exist with nonzero abundance
    The entire proposal requires a nonzero PBH population; the paper assumes this despite no direct observation.
  • ad hoc to paper PBHs have accretion disks with luminosity 10^-4 L_Edd, independent of mass, redshift, and environment
    Assumed in Section 2.2; the paper acknowledges this is uncertain but treats it as a constant for all PBHs.
  • ad hoc to paper The space exploration distance scales with Kardashev parameter as in Eq 14
    This is a new postulate introduced to link SED to K; no derivation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The power required scales as P ~ L_sun (D_sed/1 pc)^2 (Eq 15)
    This relation is introduced without derivation and is not used consistently with the tabulated values.
  • standard math Dyson sphere-like structures radiate as blackbodies
    Used to relate temperature, radius, and luminosity via the Stefan-Boltzmann law in Eq 4 and Eq 9.
  • domain assumption Modified Drake equation factors are meaningful
    The modified Drake equation (Eq 2) introduces speculative factors like f_AI and L_AI; these are not constrained by data.
invented entities (2)
  • Space exploration distance (SED)
    purpose: A new length scale intended to quantify how far a civilization extends to harvest energy, linked to the Kardashev scale.
    SED is a new construct defined by Eq 14; it has no external observable handle independent of the model.
  • Extraterrestrial artificial intelligence (ET-AI)
    purpose: The hypothesized advanced civilization type that the search targets.
    ET-AI is a hypothetical target of SETI, not observed or independently evidenced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In Search of Extraterrestrial Artificial Intelligence Through Dyson Sphere-like structures around Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGRA54MQ

@misc{pith2026241202671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In Search of Extraterrestrial Artificial Intelligence Through Dyson Sphere-like structures around Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGRA54MQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02671}
}
read the original abstract

Are we alone? It is a compelling question that human beings have confronted for centuries. The search for extraterrestrial life is a broad range of quests for finding simple forms of life up to intelligent beings in the Universe. The plausible assumption is that there is a chance that intelligent life will be followed by advanced civilization equipped or even dominated by artificial intelligence (AI). In this work, we categorize advanced civilizations (on an equal footing, an AI-dominated civilization) on the Kardashev scale. We propose a new scale known as the space exploration distance to measure civilization advancement. We propose a relation between this length and the Kardashev scale. Then, we suggest the idea that advanced civilizations will use primordial black holes (PBHs) as sources of harvesting energy. We calculate the energy harvested by calculating the space exploration distance. Finally, we propose an observational method to detect the possibility of extraterrestrial AI using Dyson sphere-like structures around PBHs in the Milky Way and other galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The x-axis is Sagan’s parameter of the Kardashev civilization type. The y-axis is the fraction of PBH for a mass of MPBH = 1M⊙. The color bar of the contours shows the quantity Kachieved/K − 1, in which Kachieved is the amount of civilization parameter achieved from PBHs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The x-axis is the Sagan’s parameter of the Kar￾dashev civilization Type K. The y-axis is the mass of PBH in solar mass for a fraction fPBH = 0.01. The colour-bar of the contours shows the quantity Kachieved/K − 1, which Kachieved is the amount of civilization parameter achieved by PBHs. PBHs as a source of energy. Note that we choose a conservative value for ηdisk. To quantify this we provide a numerical expression … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott R., Abbott T

    Abbott B. P., Abbott R., Abbott T. D., Abernathy M. R., Acernese F., Ackley K., Adams C., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud Y., Kamionkowski M., 2017, PhRvD,95, 043534. Bird S., Cholis I., Mu˜ noz J. B., Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud Y., Kamionkowski M., Kovetz E. D., Raccanelli A., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 201301. Bouwens R. J., Aravena M., Decarli R., Wa...

    work page 2016

  2. [6]

    2015, ApJL, 810, L2

    Dayal P., Cockell C., Rice K., Mazumdar A. 2015, ApJL, 810, L2. Drake, F. D. 1961, Physics Today 14 (4), 40–46. Duarte Puertas S., Vilchez J. M., Iglesias-P´ aramo J., Moll´ a M., P´ erez-Montero E., Kehrig C., Pilyugin L. S., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A186. Dyson, F. J. 1960, Science, 131,

    work page 2015

  3. [8]

    Lee C.-H

    Laureijs R., Amiaux J., Arduini S., Augu` eres J.-L., Brinchmann J., Cole R., Cropper M., et al., 2011, arXiv:1110.3193. Lee C.-H. 2018, Galax, 6,

    arXiv 2011

  4. [19]

    P., Mack K

    Ricotti M., Ostriker J. P., Mack K. J., 2008, ApJ, 680,

    work page 2008

  5. [26]

    K., Lupton R

    Yasuda N., Fukugita M., Narayanan V. K., Lupton R. H., Strateva I., Strauss M. A., Ivezi´ cˇZ., et al. 2001, AJ, 122,

    work page 2001

  6. [51]

    V., Remillard R

    Makishima K., Maejima Y., Mitsuda K., Bradt H. V., Remillard R. A., Tuohy I. R., Hoshi R., et al., 1986, ApJ, 308,

    work page 1986

  7. [72]

    J., 2020, A&A, 642, L6

    Bhattacharjee C., Stark D. J., 2020, A&A, 642, L6. Carr B., Raidal M., Tenkanen T., Vaskonen V., Veerm¨ ae H. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 023514. Carr B., K¨ uhnel F. 2020, ARNPS,70,

    work page 2020

  8. [157]

    2002, PhR, 372,

    Cooray A., Sheth R. 2002, PhR, 372,

    work page 2002

Show all 29 references
  1. [189]

    Whitmire D. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494,

    2020

  2. [193]

    C., White S., 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution , Cambridge University Press

    Mitsuda K., Inoue H., Koyama K., Makishima K., Matsuoka M., Ogawara Y., Shibazaki N., et al., 1984, PASJ, 36, 741 SET-AI and PBH 9 Mo H., van den Bosch F. C., White S., 2010, Galaxy Formation and Evolution , Cambridge University Press. Navarro, Julio F. and Frenk, Carlos S. an...

    1984

  3. [217]

    and Norton C

    Kleban M. and Norton C. E. 2023, [arXiv:2310.09898 [hep-th].] Lacki B. C. 2021, ApJ, 919,

    2023 arXiv

  4. [252]

    1979, Disturbing the Universe Harper & Row

    Dyson F. 1979, Disturbing the Universe Harper & Row. Erfani E., Kameli H. and Baghram S. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 505, no.2, 1787-1793. Escriv` a A., Kuhnel F., Tada Y. 2022, [arXiv:2211.05767]. Gardner J. P., Mather J. C., Clampin M., Doyon R., Greenhouse M. A., Hamm...

    1979 arXiv

  5. [315]

    Sagan C., 1973, Icar, 19,

    1973

  6. [350]

    2000, The Cosmic Connection , 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press

    Sagan C., Agel J. 2000, The Cosmic Connection , 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press. Schwieterman E. W., Kiang N. Y., Parenteau M. N., Harman C. E., DasSarma S., Fisher T. M., Arney G. N., et al. 2018, AsBio, 18,

    2000

  7. [355]

    Cherrat, El.A. et al. 2022, Quantum, 8,

    2022

  8. [425]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Babusiaux C., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A1. Rahvar S. 2016, ApJ, 828,

    2016

  9. [485]

    Grand R. J. J., Deason A. J., White S. D. M., Simpson C. M., G´ omez F. A., Marinacci F., Pakmor R., 2019, MNRAS, 487, L72. Green A. M. and Kavanagh B. J. 2021, J. Phys. G 48, no.4, 043001. Hsiao T. Y. Y., T. et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 506, 1723-1732. Kardashev,...

    2019

  10. [507]

    Uzawa Y., Fujii Y., Gonzalez A., Kaneko K., Kroug M., Kojima T., Kuroiwa K., et al., 2013, PhyC, 494,

    2013

  11. [631]

    F., Meadows V., Cohen M., Scalo J., Crisp D., Butler R

    Segura A., Kasting J. F., Meadows V., Cohen M., Scalo J., Crisp D., Butler R. A. H., et al. 2005, AsBio, 5,

    2005

  12. [635]

    1995, Nature, 378, 355–359

    Mayor, M., Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355–359. Merloni A., Predehl P., Becker W., B¨ ohringer H., Boller T., Brunner H., Brusa M., et al., 2012, arXiv:1209.3114. Merloni A., Fabian A. C., Ross R. R., 2000, MNRAS, 313,

    1995 arXiv

  13. [663]

    2010, ARA&A, 48,

    Seager S., Deming D. 2010, ARA&A, 48,

    2010

  14. [695]

    2001, Ann

    Tarter J. 2001, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 511-548. Tegmark M. 2017, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Knopf; First Edition. Thorne K. S., 1974, ApJ, 191,

    2001

  15. [706]

    T., Korn A

    Suazo M., Zackrisson E., Wright J. T., Korn A. J., Huston M., 2022, MNRAS, 512,

    2022

  16. [829]

    Safarzadeh M., 2018, MNRAS, 479,

    2018

  17. [1104]

    B., Novikov I

    Zel’dovich Y. B., Novikov I. D. 1966, AZh, 43, 758

    1966

  18. [1265]

    W., 2024, AJ, 168,

    Contardo G., Hogg D. W., 2024, AJ, 168,

    2024

  19. [1667]

    Dyson, F. J. 1960, Science, 132,

    1960

  20. [2988]

    K., Lundell F., Nettelblad C., Korn A

    Suazo M., Zackrisson E., Mahto P. K., Lundell F., Nettelblad C., Korn A. J., Wright J. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531,

    2024

  21. [3048]

    T., Mullan B., Sigurdsson S., Povich M

    Wright J. T., Mullan B., Sigurdsson S., Povich M. S. 2014, ApJ, 792,

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.