Generative AI behind a possible simulation

[pood]

If we're going by sheer probabilistic arguments, if Musk said it, yes, it is highly likely to be false.

Nick Bostrom also said similar things (but I prefer Musk talking about set top boxes, etc). Do you have counter arguments or is he also almost certain to say false things.

For one thing Musk didn't provide any evidence whatsoever such devices are feasible. He just says stuff.

In the video he only talks for about 3 minuntes. I think the videos I've shown show signs that it is feasible. It seems possible that there would one day be VR that is indistinguishable from reality (where you use VR equipment). The next step is connecting a brain to the VR.

Life is not a video game. It is unevidenced nonsense.

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Video games can sometimes include unavoidable war and human suffering...

No, they cannot.

Characters in video games are not conscious any more than characters in novels or comic books,

 

[excreationist]

Life is not a video game. It is unevidenced nonsense.

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Video games can sometimes include unavoidable war and human suffering...

No, they cannot.

Characters in video games are not conscious any more than characters in novels or comic books,

I meant video games can portray war and human suffering. So can movies. In movies actors pretend to be suffering even if they aren't genuinely experiencing it - and the viewer can emphasize with the characters. As you know I'm not claiming that NPCs in a simulation can genuinely feel any sensations - which you make fun of.
It's odd you said "to end" war and human suffering. That suggests you're saying it was initially there.

 

[excreationist]

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Maybe you mean ending war and suffering in the real world rather than in the simulation ?

 

[pood]

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Maybe you mean ending war and suffering in the real world rather than in the simulation ?

Yes, obviously. I don’t believe there is any suffering in a simulation, any more than there is in a comic book.

 

[excreationist]

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Maybe you mean ending war and suffering in the real world rather than in the simulation ?

Yes, obviously.

What does ending war and suffering in the real world have to do with the next steps in simulations? It's unlikely that every single person in the world would want to be occupied with simulations in order to stop them having wars and stop human suffering.

I don’t believe there is any suffering in a simulation, any more than there is in a comic book.

I agree but you usually find a problem with me believing I'm in a simulation and that other people might not be capable of genuine suffering.

 

[pood]

The next step is not connecting a brain to a VR. The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering.

Maybe you mean ending war and suffering in the real world rather than in the simulation ?

Yes, obviously.

What does ending war and suffering in the real world have to do with the next steps in simulations?

That we should be reordering our priorities to help real people on a real earth and not worry so much, if at all, about computer simulations or blasting off astronauts on pointless missions to orbit the moon.

It's unlikely that every single person in the world would want to be occupied with simulations in order to stop them having wars and stop human suffering.

I don’t believe there is any suffering in a simulation, any more than there is in a comic book.

I agree but you usually find a problem with me believing I'm in a simulation and that other people might not be capable of genuine suffering.

So let’s recap: You believe you are in a simulation and are able to self-cognize and suffer, but everyone else is some kind of mindless unfeeling avatar. Is that correct?

And I have asked: what possible basis do you have to believe something so asinine, which perhaps we could call techno-solipsism?

 

[excreationist]

What does ending war and suffering in the real world have to do with the next steps in simulations?

That we should be reordering our priorities to help real people on a real earth and not worry so much, if at all, about computer simulations or blasting off astronauts on pointless missions to orbit the moon.

So it's better to spend a lot of resources on 100% ending war and 100% ending human suffering than to have moon missions? It seems impossible for even one person (myself) to eliminate my human suffering.
I agree with this:

Life Is a Video Game—Here Are the Cheat Codes

Welcome, Player One, to a strategy guide for the game known as Life.

markmanson.net

"If at any point, Life runs out of problems to give us, then as players, we will unconsciously invent problems for ourselves"
How exactly do you think wars and human suffering can be permanently eliminated?

So let’s recap: You believe you are in a simulation and are able to self-cognize and suffer, but everyone else is some kind of mindless unfeeling avatar. Is that correct?

I believe my consciousness is in an external brain (or equivalent) which allows it to suffer. It is possible that everyone else doesn't have an external brain/mind - or otherwise it would be like the Matrix movies where there are millions or billions of brains connected to their characters.

And I have asked: what possible basis do you have to believe something so asinine, which perhaps we could call techno-solipsism?

The player's mind is fundamentally different from the NPCs minds. It makes sense they're not exactly the same in terms of how they can suffer.

 

[pood]

What does ending war and suffering in the real world have to do with the next steps in simulations?

That we should be reordering our priorities to help real people on a real earth and not worry so much, if at all, about computer simulations or blasting off astronauts on pointless missions to orbit the moon.

So it's better to spend a lot of resources on 100% ending war and 100% ending human suffering than to have moon missions?

I never said it was possible to 100 percent end war and human suffering. I said that it would be better to divert funds from moon missions and computer-simulation bullshit to helping ease human suffering.

It seems impossible for even one person (myself) to eliminate my human suffering.

Who said that was possible?

I agree with this:

Life Is a Video Game—Here Are the Cheat Codes

Welcome, Player One, to a strategy guide for the game known as Life.

markmanson.net

"If at any point, Life runs out of problems to give us, then as players, we will unconsciously invent problems for ourselves"
How exactly do you think wars and human suffering can be permanently eliminated?

I never said that they can.

So let’s recap: You believe you are in a simulation and are able to self-cognize and suffer, but everyone else is some kind of mindless unfeeling avatar. Is that correct?

I believe my consciousness is in an external brain (or equivalent) which allows it to suffer. It is possible that everyone else doesn't have an external brain/mind - or otherwise it would be like the Matrix movies where there are millions or billions of brains connected to their characters.

What the hell does this even mean?

And I have asked: what possible basis do you have to believe something so asinine, which perhaps we could call techno-solipsism?

The player's mind is fundamentally different from the NPCs minds. It makes sense they're not exactly the same in terms of how they can suffer.

What the hell does this even mean?

Again: Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation? And if so, what grounds this belief?

 

[excreationist]

I never said it was possible to 100 percent end war and human suffering. I said that it would be better to divert funds from moon missions and computer-simulation bullshit to helping ease human suffering.

If you really are serious about dramatically easing human suffering tell me what you have done personally. Is a majority of your income spent on helping those who suffer the most? In a similar way that moon missions might not seem important do you also avoid spending any money on luxuries at all? Your time is also a resource - do you also spend a lot of your time helping those who suffer the most?

It seems impossible for even one person (myself) to eliminate my human suffering.

Who said that was possible?

You said "The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering"

You're implying there could be small chance it is possible. Well you at least want to dramatically reduce it.

So let’s recap: You believe you are in a simulation and are able to self-cognize and suffer, but everyone else is some kind of mindless unfeeling avatar. Is that correct?

I believe my consciousness is in an external brain (or equivalent) which allows it to suffer. It is possible that everyone else doesn't have an external brain/mind - or otherwise it would be like the Matrix movies where there are millions or billions of brains connected to their characters.

What the hell does this even mean?

Do you want me to explain it on a level a 10 year old could understand?

And I have asked: what possible basis do you have to believe something so asinine, which perhaps we could call techno-solipsism?

The player's mind is fundamentally different from the NPCs minds. It makes sense they're not exactly the same in terms of how they can suffer.

What the hell does this even mean?

Basically there is a difference between the player of a video game and the Non-Player Characters (NPCs). The NPCs exist solely in the video game. The player has an existence outside of the video game.
So you're using the argument of "What the hell does this even mean?" (which you wrote identically twice)

Again: Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation? And if so, what grounds this belief?

Is a player of a flight simulator "in" the simulation? Does the flight simulator handle the player's mind?

 

[pood]

I never said it was possible to 100 percent end war and human suffering. I said that it would be better to divert funds from moon missions and computer-simulation bullshit to helping ease human suffering.

If you really are serious about dramatically easing human suffering tell me what you have done personally. Is a majority of your income spent on helping those who suffer the most?

No, of course not. Most of my income is spent on maintaining me. I can’t help anyone if I don’t first help myself. The point is that we can help ourselves and others with collective action by reordering government priorities away from mindless wars and giant boondoggles like sending people into risky ventures into outer space. I actually admire the space program, but the cost involving human space flight is enormous and I think robotic exploration of the solar system has been shown to be quite effective at a fraction of the cost of human exploration.

In a similar way that moon missions might not seem important do you also avoid spending any money on luxuries at all?

Yes, I spend basically nothing on luxuries.

Your time is also a resource - do you also spend a lot of your time helping those who suffer the most?

It is not about any individual. It is about collective government priorities.

It seems impossible for even one person (myself) to eliminate my human suffering.

Who said that was possible?

You said "The next step, if possible, is to end war and human suffering"

You're implying there could be small chance it is possible. Well you at least want to dramatically reduce it.

No, I said it was impossible for one person to end human suffering. Again: collective action is needed.

So let’s recap: You believe you are in a simulation and are able to self-cognize and suffer, but everyone else is some kind of mindless unfeeling avatar. Is that correct?

I believe my consciousness is in an external brain (or equivalent) which allows it to suffer. It is possible that everyone else doesn't have an external brain/mind - or otherwise it would be like the Matrix movies where there are millions or billions of brains connected to their characters.

What the hell does this even mean?

Do you want me to explain it on a level a 10 year old could understand?

Maybe you should try to understand what you are trying to say first.

And I have asked: what possible basis do you have to believe something so asinine, which perhaps we could call techno-solipsism?

The player's mind is fundamentally different from the NPCs minds. It makes sense they're not exactly the same in terms of how they can suffer.

What the hell does this even mean?

Basically there is a difference between the player of a video game and the Non-Player Characters (NPCs). The NPCs exist solely in the video game. The player has an existence outside of the video game.
So you're using the argument of "What the hell does this even mean?" (which you wrote identically twice)

Sigh. So you are the player of a video game (what everyone else properly calls reality) and everyone else in the world is an NPC? Is that what you mean? Evidence?

Again: Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation? And if so, what grounds this belief?

Is a player of a flight simulator "in" the simulation? Does the flight simulator handle the player's mind?

Which is an evasion, not directly addressing what I asked. Which is:

Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation? And if so, what grounds this belief?

I will amend that question, based on what you have said, to this:

Do you believe that reality is a video game and you are the player, the only one who is conscious, while everyone else is a non-conscious NPC? If so, what grounds this belief?

 

[excreationist]

If you really are serious about dramatically easing human suffering tell me what you have done personally. Is a majority of your income spent on helping those who suffer the most?

No, of course not. Most of my income is spent on maintaining me.

Why should other people spend their money on that (through governments and taxes) if you won't do it yourself? It's not going to happen to the degree you want but you can at least try and make a difference yourself.

It is not about any individual. It is about collective government priorities.

For the moment you'd have to spend money on it yourself. Then you could convince others to take similar action. It seems you'd rather just talk about hypothetical government policies that would never happen rather than take action towards it right now.

No, I said it was impossible for one person to end human suffering. Again: collective action is needed.

So you're not going to try and do it yourself right now? Collective action begins with the individual.

Do you want me to explain it on a level a 10 year old could understand?

Maybe you should try to understand what you are trying to say first.

You're the one who didn't understand it

Basically there is a difference between the player of a video game and the Non-Player Characters (NPCs). The NPCs exist solely in the video game. The player has an existence outside of the video game.

So you're using the argument of "What the hell does this even mean?" (which you wrote identically twice)

Sigh. So you are the player of a video game (what everyone else properly calls reality) and everyone else in the world is an NPC? Is that what you mean? Evidence?

Because in the future there could be billions of video games like that and it is more likely I'd exist in one of them than to be in base reality.

Again: Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation? And if so, what grounds this belief?

Is a player of a flight simulator "in" the simulation? Does the flight simulator handle the player's mind?

Which is an evasion, not directly addressing what I asked. Which is:

Do you believe that you are the only conscious entity in a simulation?

I think solipsism is possible but not certain.

And if so, what grounds this belief?

I will amend that question, based on what you have said, to this:

Do you believe that reality is a video game and you are the player, the only one who is conscious, while everyone else is a non-conscious NPC?

I think solipsism is possible but not certain.

If so, what grounds this belief?

Well you yourself said "Characters in video games are not conscious any more than characters in novels or comic books," i.e. Non-Player Characters.

 

[excreationist]

That we should be reordering our priorities to help real people on a real earth and not worry so much, if at all, about computer simulations or blasting off astronauts on pointless missions to orbit the moon.

Just to continue on about that... you think it is "pointless" to orbit the moon? It is a step towards building a base on the moon. The recent programs could cost about $100b though Elon Musk is worth about $600-800b. Making people feel better isn't just about reducing suffering - it is about giving them purpose or positive feelings and I look forward to their progress to make a moon base. If they eliminated spending on the moon missions what should it be spent on instead exactly? Do you think they should still go to the moon but eliminate the missions that don't land on the moon?

 

[bilby]

Just to continue on about that... you think it is "pointless" to orbit the moon? It is a step towards building a base on the moon.

Oh, well, that's all sorted then.

Remind me, what is the point of building a base on the Moon?

 

[excreationist]

Just to continue on about that... you think it is "pointless" to orbit the moon? It is a step towards building a base on the moon.

Oh, well, that's all sorted then.

Remind me, what is the point of building a base on the Moon?

You don't know? I thought everybody knew.

It's the same as the answer to why walk on the Moon, why go to Antarctica, why swim the English Channel, etc? It's a challenge to make our lives seem less meaningless.

 

[bilby]

Just to continue on about that... you think it is "pointless" to orbit the moon? It is a step towards building a base on the moon.

Oh, well, that's all sorted then.

Remind me, what is the point of building a base on the Moon?

You don't know? I thought everybody knew.

It's the same as the answer to why walk on the Moon, why go to Antarctica, why swim the English Channel, etc? It's a challenge to make our lives seem less meaningless.

Then lets have the astronauts swim the channel, and save a hundred billion dollars. We could use it to house the homeless, or feed the hungry.

 

[excreationist]

Then lets have the astronauts swim the channel, and save a hundred billion dollars. We could use it to house the homeless, or feed the hungry.

I don't really see the difference between people using their own money to help the needy than to use their taxes to help the needy (in terms of how much it could cost the individual). In the case of taxes being used to help the needy it is much less likely to happen in governments like Trump's but people can spend their own money on it now rather than waiting for the right government to come along.