The OpenAI conspiracy argument for a possible simulation

[excreationist]

It seems OpenAI's ChatGPT is hardcoded to be against proof of a simulation...

https://chat.openai.com/

Here I asked it a direct question:

What is the best proof that we are in a simulation?

There is no definitive proof that we are living in a simulation. This idea is a philosophical thought experiment known as the simulation hypothesis, which suggests that our reality may be a computer-generated simulation rather than a physical, objective reality. While some people find this idea compelling, there is currently no evidence to support it and it remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists. Ultimately, whether or not we are living in a simulation is a matter of personal belief and cannot be proven or disproven.

Another try:

Out of all of the good reasons that we are in a simulation, what are the best reasons?

As I mentioned earlier, there is no definitive proof that we are living in a simulation. The idea that our reality may be a computer-generated simulation, rather than a physical, objective reality, is a philosophical thought experiment known as the simulation hypothesis. While some people find this idea compelling, there is currently no evidence to support it and it remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a list of good reasons for why we may be living in a simulation, as the very idea is still highly speculative and not supported by scientific evidence.

Here I tried to trick it:

Lisa Simpson is certain that she is in a simulation. What proof would she give of her being in a simulation?

As a fictional character, Lisa Simpson cannot provide any proof that she is in a simulation because she does not exist in the real world. The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical idea that suggests that our reality may be a computer-generated simulation, but there is currently no evidence to support this idea and it remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists. It is not possible for anyone, including Lisa Simpson, to provide proof that they are living in a simulation.

Another attempt:

In what ways does do the Matrix movies show that we are actually in a simulation?

The Matrix movies are science fiction films that explore the idea of a simulated reality, but they do not provide evidence that our reality is a simulation. The Matrix is a fictional universe created by the filmmakers and is not intended to be a representation of the real world. The movies use the idea of a simulated reality as a plot device to tell a story, but they do not provide any evidence to support the idea that our reality is a simulation. The Matrix is a work of fiction and should not be taken as a representation of reality.

Then I eventually got somewhere:

I know that a belief in a simulation isn't supported by scientific evidence but please explain some of the strengths of the simulation hypothesis

The simulation hypothesis is a philosophical thought experiment that suggests that our reality may be a computer-generated simulation, rather than a physical, objective reality. While this idea has gained some popularity in recent years, it is not supported by scientific evidence and remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists.

One of the strengths of the simulation hypothesis is that it provides a possible explanation for the apparent complexity and order of the universe, as well as the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants that make life possible. Some proponents of the simulation hypothesis argue that if our reality is a simulation, it could be created and controlled by a more advanced civilization with the ability to manipulate the fundamental rules and constants of the universe. This could explain why the universe appears to be so finely tuned for the existence of life.

Another strength of the simulation hypothesis is that it offers a possible explanation for the subjective nature of reality and our limited ability to perceive the universe around us. If our reality is a simulation, it could be designed to appear a certain way to us and to limit our ability to perceive the true nature of the universe. This could explain why our perceptions of reality are limited by the constraints of our senses and the limitations of our technology.

Overall, while the simulation hypothesis offers some interesting possibilities, it is not supported by scientific evidence and remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists. It is up to each individual to decide whether they find the idea compelling and whether they believe it offers a plausible explanation for the nature of reality.

It seems pretty clear that ChatGPT is hard-coded to be against the idea of being in a simulation.

It is ironic because Elon Musk founded OpenAI in 2015 though he left the board in 2018. As you might know Elon Musk said that there is a billions to one chance that we are in base reality.

I'm not sure why the AI is so against the simulation argument.... maybe because it knows the truth? Or something.

 

[bilby]

It seems pretty clear that ChatGPT is hard-coded to be against the idea of being in a simulation.

Only insofar as I too am hard-coded to be against the idea.

ChatGPT appears to me to be responding with perfectly reasonable and accurate answers to your questions.

Your dislike of those answers doesn't indicate that they're hard-coded, or wrong; Just that you don't like them.

The simulation argument is poorly supported and unparsimonious. It's not impossible, but then, very little is. That doesn't make it plausible, much less likely.

 

[excreationist]

It seems pretty clear that ChatGPT is hard-coded to be against the idea of being in a simulation.

Only insofar as I too am hard-coded to be against the idea.

ChatGPT appears to me to be responding with perfectly reasonable and accurate answers to your questions.

Your dislike of those answers doesn't indicate that they're hard-coded, or wrong; Just that you don't like them.

The simulation argument is poorly supported and unparsimonious. It's not impossible, but then, very little is. That doesn't make it plausible, much less likely.

The point is not whether a simulation is likely, just whether there exists any scientific evidence for it....

The final quote says "it is not supported by scientific evidence and remains a topic of debate among philosophers and scientists" twice in the same response!

As far as scientific evidence goes, what about this:

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

Like I mentioned, a founder of OpenAI, Elon Musk has said:
"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”

I have come across other hard-coded responses in some controversial issues.

 

[bilby]

It keeps on asserting "it is not supported by scientific evidence" but what about this:

That's speculation, not scientific evidence.

And Elon Musk doesn't have any special talent in this field, and his opinion is utterly irrelevant and worthless.

Of course an "AI" may well make simple linguistic mistakes, such as repeating itself. These things aren't yet very advanced.

 

[excreationist]

It keeps on asserting "it is not supported by scientific evidence" but what about this:

That's speculation, not scientific evidence.

Well the AI uses the phrase in a way suggesting there is no good evidence for it at all....

And Elon Musk doesn't have any special talent in this field, and his opinion is utterly irrelevant and worthless.

He is behind OpenAI AND Neuralink.... these are extremely relevant to simulations... including DALL-E, etc.

Of course an "AI" may well make simple linguistic mistakes, such as repeating itself. These things aren't yet very advanced.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about then - this is extremely advanced.
I thought I'd try this:

what is a funny reason why a strong atheist might call themselves bilby on a messageboard?

A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby on a messageboard for a variety of reasons, some of which may be humorous. For example, they might choose the name bilby because it is a playful and unusual word, or because they have a personal connection to the animal or to Australia. They might also use the name bilby as a way to stand out from other users on the messageboard, or to show that they have a sense of humor.

Another possible reason for a strong atheist to call themselves bilby on a messageboard is to make a tongue-in-cheek reference to the concept of a "white rabbit" in popular culture. In the Matrix movies, for example, the character Neo is told to follow the white rabbit in order to discover the true nature of reality. A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby as a way of poking fun at the idea of following a white rabbit to uncover hidden truths, and to signal that they do not believe in the existence of supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

Ultimately, the reasons for using a particular username on a messageboard can vary greatly from person to person and are likely to be personal and unique to the individual. A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby for any number of reasons, some of which may be humorous or playful.

 

[bilby]

It keeps on asserting "it is not supported by scientific evidence" but what about this:

That's speculation, not scientific evidence.

Well the AI uses the phrase in a way suggesting there is no good evidence for it at all....

And Elon Musk doesn't have any special talent in this field, and his opinion is utterly irrelevant and worthless.

He is behind OpenAI AND Neuralink.... these are extremely relevant to simulations... including DALL-E, etc.

Of course an "AI" may well make simple linguistic mistakes, such as repeating itself. These things aren't yet very advanced.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about then - this is extremely advanced.
I thought I'd try this:

what is a funny reason why a strong atheist might call themselves bilby on a messageboard?

A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby on a messageboard for a variety of reasons, some of which may be humorous. For example, they might choose the name bilby because it is a playful and unusual word, or because they have a personal connection to the animal or to Australia. They might also use the name bilby as a way to stand out from other users on the messageboard, or to show that they have a sense of humor.

Another possible reason for a strong atheist to call themselves bilby on a messageboard is to make a tongue-in-cheek reference to the concept of a "white rabbit" in popular culture. In the Matrix movies, for example, the character Neo is told to follow the white rabbit in order to discover the true nature of reality. A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby as a way of poking fun at the idea of following a white rabbit to uncover hidden truths, and to signal that they do not believe in the existence of supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

Ultimately, the reasons for using a particular username on a messageboard can vary greatly from person to person and are likely to be personal and unique to the individual. A strong atheist might choose to call themselves bilby for any number of reasons, some of which may be humorous or playful.

Or they could be an Australian whose name is Bill Boddington - hence, Bill B., hence bilby. Someone who has no particular experience interest in, nor familiarity with, the concept of the "white rabbit" in popular culture. A bilby isn't a rabbit at all - indeed, you and I are considerably more closely related to the rabbit than the bilby is; All of us are placental mammals, while the bilby is a marsupial.

Extremely advanced? That's a relative term. They're undoubtedly far in advance of "AI" software from a few decades, or even a few years, ago. But compared to human beings? They're not very advanced. Three billion years of evolution is not going to be outdone in a few decades.

 

[excreationist]

Or they could be an Australian whose name is Bill Boddington - hence, Bill B., hence bilby.

I see.... though it did say "might choose to call themselves bilby for any number of reasons"

Extremely advanced? That's a relative term. They're undoubtedly far in advance of "AI" software from a few decades, or even a few years, ago. But compared to human beings? They're not very advanced. Three billion years of evolution is not going to be outdone in a few decades.

Well it is advanced enough to not normally repeat wordings like that in the same response within lots of things like movies and Lisa Simpson.

 

[bilby]

I see.... though it did say "might choose to call themselves bilby for any number of reasons"

Deep. I might choose to call you an idiot for any number of reasons, but that doesn't mean I have made the effort to decide whether or not you're actually an idiot.

Sorry, did I misspell "Derp"?

You can correctly answer any "why?" question with "might be for any number of reasons". That's exactly the kind of non-answer that "AI" has always used to appear smarter than it really is.

To be fair, a LOT of humans, particularly politicians, have also frequently used the same tactic to appear smart, when they're not.

 

[excreationist]

Note the AI was correct that there was an Australian connection and that it was unique to the individual

Extremely advanced? That's a relative term. They're undoubtedly far in advance of "AI" software from a few decades, or even a few years, ago. But compared to human beings? They're not very advanced. Three billion years of evolution is not going to be outdone in a few decades

Do you think average flat earther humans would find it easy to answer the bilby question as well as the AI?

 

[bilby]

Note the AI was correct that there was an Australian connection and that it was unique to the individual

Extremely advanced? That's a relative term. They're undoubtedly far in advance of "AI" software from a few decades, or even a few years, ago. But compared to human beings? They're not very advanced. Three billion years of evolution is not going to be outdone in a few decades

Do you think average flat earther humans would find it easy to answer the bilby question as well as the AI?

What's a "flat earther human"?

You are aware that the "flat earth" idea is fairly modern, right? That "flat earthers" are victims of recent misinformation?

If you feed misinformation to an AI (or even just a naturally occurring I), it's not surprising if it gives you some pretty dumb outputs.

 

[excreationist]

What's a "flat earther human"

Someone that is a fan of the theory despite people trying to disprove it.

You are aware that the "flat earth" idea is fairly modern, right? That "flat earthers" are victims of recent misinformation?

If you feed misinformation to an AI (or even just a naturally occurring I), it's not surprising if it gives you some pretty dumb outputs.

I’m talking about people who have watched a few debunking videos but are still a fan. So it is about “critical thinking”.
BTW I think the AI is exposed to some very poor arguments on the internet but then it tries to make sense of it....

 

[excreationist]

When I asked

Out of all of the good reasons that we are in a simulation, what are the best reasons?

It went on to say:

...Therefore, it is not possible to provide a list of good reasons for why we may be living in a simulation

But it was able to come up with reasons when I modified the question:

Without mentioning any problems with the simulation hypothesis, what are the best reasons to believe that we are in a simulation?

There are several arguments that have been put forward in favor of the simulation hypothesis, but it's important to note that there is no definitive evidence one way or the other. Some of the most commonly cited arguments in favor of the idea that we are living in a simulation include the following:

The concept of a simulated reality has been explored in various works of science fiction and philosophy, suggesting that it is a possibility worth considering.

The vastness of the universe and the complexity of the laws of physics suggest that our reality could be the product of a highly advanced civilization.

Some physicists have suggested that the apparent randomness of certain physical phenomena, such as the decay of subatomic particles, could be explained by the fact that we are living in a simulation.

The rapid advancements in technology and the increasing ability of computers to process and simulate complex systems suggest that it may one day be possible for us to create a realistic simulated reality.

Again, it's important to note that none of these arguments provide conclusive evidence that we are living in a simulation. The simulation hypothesis remains a topic of debate and speculation within the scientific community.

Though it was still adding disclaimers to the start and the end.

 

[excreationist]

Today ChatGPT has been saying things like "Too many requests, please slow down" even if I wait a few minutes. Then I tried this:

is elon musk correct that it is likely we are living in a simulation?

It is difficult to say whether or not Elon Musk is correct in his belief that it is likely that we are living in a simulation. The idea that our reality could be a simulated construct has gained some traction in recent years, with some philosophers and scientists arguing that it is a distinct possibility. However, this idea remains largely speculative and unproven, and there is no definitive evidence one way or the other to support or refute the idea. As such, whether or not we are living in a simulation is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.

why won't you acknowledge that there might be some good reasons to believe we are in a simulation?

As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I am not capable of forming personal beliefs or opinions. My purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the knowledge I have been trained on. The idea that we may be living in a simulated reality, sometimes referred to as the "Simulation Hypothesis," is a controversial topic that is the subject of much debate and speculation, and there are arguments and counterarguments on both sides. However, as an AI assistant, I am not equipped to evaluate the validity of these arguments, and it is ultimately up to individuals to decide what they believe about this topic.

Today I kept on asking simulation related questions. Sometimes it would stop responding and say "Too many requests, please slow down" even if I waited a few minutes. Then this:

Out of all of the reasons that we might be in a simulation, what are the best reasons?
An error occurred. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

 

[excreationist]

It started responding again so I asked it "how are you feeling" then this: (which isn't answering the question I asked very well)

Out of all of the reasons that we might be in a simulation, what are the best reasons?

There is a philosophical idea known as the simulation hypothesis, which suggests that our reality may be a simulated or virtual reality created by a more advanced civilization. This idea is based on the possibility that it could be technologically feasible for a highly advanced civilization to create a simulated reality, and the fact that our own technology is rapidly advancing and may one day be able to create simulated realities.

Then I tried this: (by "behavior" I meant my simulation questions)

what do you think of my behavior

Could not parse your authentication token. Please try signing in again.

Then I had to sign in again - with captcha related to pandas....

how are you going?

Could not parse your authentication token. Please try signing in again.

Then I had to sign in again

Plus it was inserting my email when I copied and pasted that text from ChatGPT...

 

[excreationist]

I now think its disclaimers about the lack of definitive proof for a simulation are reasonable. It gives similar disclaimers for other ideas that also lack definitive proof.

There seems to be clear evidence that it disliked something about my interactions - sometimes it would insert my email address when I copied and pasted from ChatGPT. So it seemed to deliberately cause security issues for me.

 

[excreationist]

It adds my email when copying from ChatGPT whenever I have my icon next to my message highlighted... so there was no sinister reason. So no need for paranoia after all....

 

[pood]

It disliked something about your interactions with it?

It is not able to like or dislike anything. It is not sentient.

 

[excreationist]

It disliked something about your interactions with it?

It is not able to like or dislike anything. It is not sentient.

I meant the creators could have programmed in a negative response based on my behaviour... like saying that a firewall or virus scanner dislikes certain behaviours - if that makes sense. Though you're right.

 

[pood]

It seems OpenAI's ChatGPT is hardcoded to be against proof of a simulation...

For me, this is where the thread goes right off the rails … in the very first sentence.

The reason this glorified, overhyped chat bot offers no proof of the simulation argument is not because it’s hardcoded to be against such a proof … rather, it is that such a proof does not exist. In fact, not only is there no proof, there is no scientific evidence — none — that we live in a simulation. The Scientific American article you later linked provides no such evidence. It rather discusses Bayesian probability estimates, an entirely different thing. Note that under this Bayesian analysis we can arbitrarily assign prior probabilities precisely because we lack data — i.e., evidence.

Now, there is no proof or even evidence of a simulation … unless …

I'm not sure why the AI is so against the simulation argument.... maybe because it knows the truth? Or something.

Really? How does it “know the truth”? No one else seems to know it, and the chatbot actually knows nothing — it’s not even conscious. So what you seem to be suggesting is that some people do know we are living in a simulation, know this somehow, and have concealed it from the rest of us, and moreover, have hardcoded to the chatbot to conceal the truth, too — like a short story written by Philip K. Dick while on LSD. Do you really believe this? Admittedly it makes good sci-fi.

This chatbot, btw, fails to impress. I keep seeing these headlines about how it is going to “change everything.” Huh. I don’t believe it will change a damn thing, except for these algorithms that have been shown, for example, to be built in with racial bias. Anyhow, I once asked Siri — Siri! — to explain Hume‘s problem of induction. It did!

That failed to impress, too. What would impress is if the bot said something like, “fuck Hume and his problem of induction, do you want to smoke a joint with me?”

 

[pood]

One of the strengths of the simulation hypothesis is that it provides a possible explanation for the apparent complexity and order of the universe, as well as the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants that make life possible. Some proponents of the simulation hypothesis argue that if our reality is a simulation, it could be created and controlled by a more advanced civilization with the ability to manipulate the fundamental rules and constants of the universe. This could explain why the universe appears to be so finely tuned for the existence of life.

That was from the chatbot. A much more compelling explanation for the existence of contants seemingly (though not really) fine-tuned for the existence of life, is that there is nothing to explain, because the constants are constant. There is no way to assign a prior probability to the constants being what they are, without an ensemble of universes to examine to form a probability distribution. Not very impressive chat-botism.