Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t1_jbckhzb wrote

That's what they're saying the advancement is here. The presence of the message is undetectable. The alterations that are done to the image are indistinguishable from other probabilistic filters that the file type is typically subjected to.

9

t1_jbcnplo wrote

If true - its actually a big deal.

Consider a hostile universe and we need to send a signal across the galaxy, the presence of a signal alone is enough information to get you xenocided. Being about to mask the existence of a signal will be vital.

−5

t1_jbcqx9l wrote

That's not what they're claiming though. The presence of a signal is known. The presence of a second message embedded in the signal is what is undetectable because the encoding process is embedded in probabilistic filters that the signal was subjected to anyway. And the output signal is indistinguishable from a signal that went through such a filter with no embedded message.

6

t1_jbcs38u wrote

Yea. So match the signal to that of a local star or some other natural phenomenon.

The point is - if this is impossible which it may be. Long communication in a hostile galaxy may be impossible. If it is possible an explanation for not detecting signals is they are hidden and undetectable.

−1

t1_jbddq3v wrote

I love that you went right to space travel. I don't think this is applicable but I like where your mind is at

3