AGI_69

AGI_69 t1_jef3jz7 wrote

>In humans for example, people with the highest intelligence tend to be more empathetic towards life itself and wants to preserve it.

That's such a bad take. Humans are evolved to cooperate and have empathy, AI is just optimizer, that will kill us all, because it needs our atoms.. unless we explicitly align it.

3

AGI_69 t1_j57v0yz wrote

Quite the opposite, the era just before AI is invented is perfect for simulation. It's the most interesting era in human history. Once AI is invented, humans will not be the ones doing all the progress, they will just watch AI do everything better.

As to, who is simulated and who isn't, that's separate issue. Personally, I chose to treat everyone as equal to me. But I disagree, that just because homeless people exists, the simulation hypothesis is false.

1

AGI_69 t1_j51sfg5 wrote

You can't compare infinities like that. The infinite sets have different elements, so it's not mathematically correct to say that they are same size, or that probability in landing in any of them is equal.

More importantly, as far as we know, infinities exists only in mathematics - you are creating additional strong assumption here.

The simulation hypothesis only needs very weak assumptions compared to Multiverse AND infinite number of sub-universes

2

AGI_69 t1_j51gh3h wrote

Simulation hypothesis has place in philosophy, whether or not you find it "practical".

The most convincing argument, is that every Universe that allows technological progress will ultimately contain billions (or more) simulations and therefore the probability that, this world is simulation is very high, compared to "real" Universe.

2

AGI_69 t1_j518khe wrote

>Sort of an aside, but I wanted to get ahead of the "we could live in the
matrix already" people as if I haven't deeply probed that question...
heh.

You didn't really address the argument. I am sorry, but you can't remove arguments, by simply mentioning them.

Nothing in laws of physics says, that this "reality" cannot be fully simulated at human perception resolution. Why can't there be large scale simulations with billions of people and be meaningful ? To me, I think there is lack of imagination in saying "All possible VR's are not meaningful"

8

AGI_69 t1_j516ntf wrote

>VR is just a other meaningless, more advanced entertainment system

It's just lack of imagination to say, that all possible VR's are meaningless.

As I've said, we probably live in simulation right now, and I would say it's not the only meaningful simulation possible.

8

AGI_69 t1_j514yxq wrote

We most likely live in simulation, so what you define as real - is probably another VR. That makes your whole argument actually pro-VR.

For the VR's that we going to create soon...

Even AI will be constrained by laws of physics. You cannot slow/speed up time, you can't travel faster than speed of light. Lot of experiences are extremely dangerous in real world. They can also be expensive and polluting environment.

Finally, I don't see why we can't have both. It's not competition. Balanced life will probably consist of some VR time and some this-simulation time.

5

AGI_69 t1_izzp5y2 wrote

Let people be the judge of what is "monumentally important" or what should they get "in their brain". Write your post, without all that grandiosity and self-importance. I've read posts, that were 1000x times more interesting/novel/profound and none of them started with, how "monumentally important" the post is going to be.

9

AGI_69 t1_izzhxcv wrote

Everyone thinks, his/her post is important. You really do not need to sound like a crack-pot, wannabe prophet (your words).

I scanned the post and there is nothing new. Just points, that are reiterated here million times. Just reduce the grandiosity and self-importance by like 90%.

18