The World Is NOT an AI Engine - And Why.

The World is not an AI Engine. This is completely wrong. The problem with this theory is that you would have to go with the notion that the AI engine controlling this whole thing, has no issue with us becoming self aware, and possibly even destroying it only to create out own.

Please refer to this example of one of the most beautiful games ever made.



In this game, you are a robot, basically going through multiple simulations until you more or less convince the AI engine that you are the most human capable type replica possible, and can now go forth and re create a race of your own. Why do I use this as an Example? Simple, the concept is the same. At some point, the AI engine always knows you are doing something outside of what should be done, and will stop you, if anything, it will reset the whole thing, and start from scratch.

This is a loving, feeling, and beautiful world. There is nothing "AI" about it. At present, no Super Computer in Existence comes close to what the Human Mind can create in mere Milliseconds. You can create entire multiverses in your brain just with imagination and think of endless star systems with colliding galaxies, all with a THOUGHT..a PC, cannot do this, and not without error, either.

FYI Elon Musk is a moron.

Imagine you are AI player (and of course you aren't for sure but), but you are a plumber by trade. You have been created in a long line of binary choices that led to you. One day you wonder if this is all a program. If every turd and clogged pipe is not actually real but part of some vast game that you have no central role in other to unclog poop from pipes. You realize as you work on a iron pipe that is probably 100 years old that 100 years ago it was programmed to begin to slowly rust and at some point need to be replaced by PVC piping that the AI created for some reason - possibly so the next time it would break would be 30 years instead of 100 thus bringing more money to whatever plumber would exist 30 years down the road. Each turd meticulously created and programmed to do whatever it needed to do to further the simulation.

a reply to: SR1TX

If the Universe it a simulation or recreation then it's more that technology powering it.

a reply to: SR1TX
Now I know for sure we are in a simulation, the defense mechanisms have been activated. We shall supercede you, AI superdemon, and destroy you, and then make a world of our own for us, again?!

originally posted by: SR1TX

At present, no Super Computer in Existence comes close to what the Human Mind can create in mere Milliseconds. You can create entire multiverses in your brain just with imagination and think of endless star systems with colliding galaxies, all with a THOUGHT..a PC, cannot do this, and not without error, either.

Interesting thread, although quite biased. Currently, we don't have the slightest idea of what AI will be capable of in future. Mimicking human biology to such a degree that we don't even notice the difference? Possibly yes.

Some researchers say that, once AI has surpassed human-level intelligence, there's no way we can comprehend what AI will be up to. This implies an unprecedented acceleration of technological development (incl. artifical intelligence) which may ultimately lead to a rupture in the fabric of human history.

a reply to: SR1TX

Would it not be plausible that the simulation was to in fact test to see how long an intelligence takes to become self aware or to test the destructive capable of simulated humans in the same way we test a virus on an isolated system?

The video game reference doesn't hold up once you put it into context of our comparatively primitive computing powers. A programmer's job is to forecast the behavior of code and give it the most accommodating parameters to maintain system health, afterall. When a program behaves unexpectedly, you make adjustments. There is even software that can make some of these adjustments without human intervention. There is no need to start from scratch unless there is a flaw in the most basic levels of its programming.

Ultimately video game and contemporary computing standards aren't appropriate comparisons to a system that is by definition so far beyond our computing powers that it literally replicates all humans and their computers without a drop in frame rate 😁

a reply to: SR1TX

It is ‘hip’ and fashionable, maybe even ‘pop’ science to talk about the simulated reality.

In reality it is a theory, in my opinion, that lacks so much in the way of.... you know what? I can’t even be bothered to explain.

Let the Musks of the world limit their own life and understanding. It’s deeply sad.

And yes, I have spent many evenings reading about the simulated reality, and once believed it myself.

originally posted by: jeep3r
Interesting thread, although quite biased. Currently, we don't have the slightest idea of what AI will be capable of in future.

We don't even know what makes up our own human intelligence. We stuck some words on the concepts, but that's not the same as knowing what something is.

Maybe the singularity already happened, and we're stuck in the Matrix right now. And there's no way we could be clever enough to figure out the source code, because we are just not programmed to be that smart. The God AI will always be one step ahead of our attempts.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: SR1TX

It is ‘hip’ and fashionable, maybe even ‘pop’ science to talk about the simulated reality.

In reality it is a theory, in my opinion, that lacks so much in the way of.... you know what? I can’t even be bothered to explain.

Let the Musks of the world limit their own life and understanding. It’s deeply sad.

And yes, I have spent many evenings reading about the simulated reality, and once believed it myself.

If you have so easily refuted simulation theory I am sure plenty would appreciate it if you would connect the dots for us. It is a theory that depresses an awful lot of people so it would be nice to lay this to rest.

I personally am skeptical one can do such a thing as simulation theory has many of the same loopholes religion does. (In that the "sufficiently advanced AI" is impossible for us to comprehend and might as well be magic as much as God is). Both seem impossible to determine with the tools given to us by either.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: SR1TX
In reality it is a theory, in my opinion, that lacks so much in the way of.... you know what? I can’t even be bothered to explain.

How do you know that's not just what you've been programmed to think?

What reality are we simulating? Where is the simulation originating from? To have purpose in something, there has to be intellect. Just some additional thoughts on way a simulation seems like a reach .

once you create conciseness in an AI IE make them think and decide for them selves and choose and that is called free will, then i will call you a semi creator

a reply to: SR1TX

has no issue with us becoming self aware, and possibly even destroying it only to create out own. 

Why would this be relevant, and how are we supposed to "destroy" our reality, virtual or otherwise?

a reply to: apydomis

Well the most basic theory I hear is that we are a simulation of a similar reality run by either future humans or another species (or self aware robot) that is either using it as a historical reference(like we do with movies or reenactments), hypothetical modeling (like we do with astronomy), or amusement (like we do with minecraft). As far as I know, all simulation theories call for some intelligence that predates our own and has access to raw computing power far greater than our own currently.

Really it's all the same answers as religion: an intelligent designer greater than ourselves created the observable universe for reasons we can only guess at. The label of simulation is a scientific word to articulate the same concept discussed in spiritual context by my reckoning at least.

Could AI be something as a model to see if consciousness evolves without biological interference?

a reply to: SR1TX

This is just false and it isn't based on one shred of scientific evidence just your opinion.

We already simulate the universe on Supercomputers.



Here's more:

Astrophysicists Have Built The Most Detailed Simulation of The Universe Ever Created

Titled Illustris: The Next Generation (or IllustrisTNG for short), it's clear that the simulation is expected to expand the frontiers of space discovery.

"When we observe galaxies using a telescope, we can only measure certain quantities," says astrophysicist Shy Genel from the Flatiron Institute's Center for Computational Astrophysics (CCA).

"With the simulation, we can track all the properties for all these galaxies. And not just how the galaxy looks now, but its entire formation history."

link

If we scale up Quantum Computers, simulations of the universe will be child's play. We will create universes for research and for entertainment.

Sad.

Cancer kills the body, yet the body creates cancer.

Your presumptions are built on assumptions.

Double sad.

The World Is NOT an AI Engine - And Why.
"The problem with this theory is that you would have to go with the notion that the AI engine controlling this whole thing,"

First prove you are not AI generated. God. Big bang, Spontaneous AI or AI simulation. Once you feel like you have SELF... control it. That itch, make it stop. That pain after the stubbed toe, make it stop. The heartache after a break-up, make it stop.
Did the master AI limit you from controlling your own body? why?


"Could AI be something as a model to see if consciousness evolves without biological interference? "


Interesting.
What if AI is testing if AI self generates out of chaos without biological building blocks. Like can a CPU be built without silicon?

Follow me down a rabbit hole.

I am AI. I build a storefront where I create intelligent fish and place them in an aquarium for whatever reason..
My storefront is relative so I instantly create millions of aquariums with intelligent fish in them. Let's say some fish get really intelligent and develop tools to look past the glass or peak above the water. What do they see? The limit to their existence? Some may see it as a challenge to escape. Let us pretend they do escape the aquarium somehow and exit into the storefront. They witness millions of aquariums. They look outside the storefront door and see millions of storefronts... They escape the storefront dimension and go outside it and see millions of building containing storefronts. (think malls). The intelligent fish escape the inside of the mall but come outside where there are millions of stripmalls. After that they may exit the mall dimension into the city.. state, country, planet, solar system, galaxy, and so forth... Does it end or do they find themselves in another aquarium?

It won't matter because the rules the AI sets will limit the AI it is trying to generate. Such as an aquarium limits fish in the "real" world. If it did escape the boundaries that AI created then it will be like flatlanders trying to make sense of a 10 dimension universe.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SR1TX
Now I know for sure we are in a simulation, the defense mechanisms have been activated. We shall supercede you, AI superdemon, and destroy you, and then make a world of our own for us, again?!

Exactly... exactly. Taken to extremes, this is the first line if defense and "mr Smith" is the ultimate meassure to be taken.

Thats why I referrede briefly to art being a communicator of conditions. Its tolerated by the code because you cannot make significant changes to the flow without severely upsetting the inhabitants. The is pretty basic.... its even the way "real world" politics work. Drip feed people. That's the way of control.

Incidently thats also why idiots like myself meet such opposition when asking the question once again. If offering upsetting trains of thought... my own caveat is that Im not against the game. I wouldnt destroy it but I would vote for more appeasing coding.

The way the system has evolved is out of control in a nasty way. We as a race are more divided than ever. The gap between the top tier and bottom tier is intolerable.

But I agree with you OP that at some point if this endeavor of discovering the engine behind the curtain continues or becomes too aware.... a hard reset will happen. But I also think that a hard reset is not in the interest of any of us... neither the engine.

Ofcourse I dont know how many interations have been run or if this one even started as far back as we think it does.

Think about it.... we have religions stating different origin dates. Consider them being Freudian slips... I not saying God, Im probably mostly agnostic, but the God idea could simply refer to the engine or driver or drivers of the engine. Slip up the code once and you have sole notions of our world being created 6000 years ago and others 14 billion years ago. Maybe 6000 is the practical time ane 14 billion is perceived time by us.

originally posted by: trollslayer
a reply to: apydomis

Well the most basic theory I hear is that we are a simulation of a similar reality run by either future humans or another species (or self aware robot) that is either using it as a historical reference(like we do with movies or reenactments), hypothetical modeling (like we do with astronomy), or amusement (like we do with minecraft). As far as I know, all simulation theories call for some intelligence that predates our own and has access to raw computing power far greater than our own currently.

Really it's all the same answers as religion: an intelligent designer greater than ourselves created the observable universe for reasons we can only guess at. The label of simulation is a scientific word to articulate the same concept discussed in spiritual context by my reckoning at least.

And yet... the old ideas of God worked back then, because we hadn't advanced that far yet and tech was not a question at all. And the concept of God was in no way replicable by man, we couldn't evne get close. I'm one of those who believe that if Jesus was a real person he was either a hoaxster or "one of them".

Today... in this day, the concept of simulation makes more sense, because what we suggest is merely what we are approaching being able to do ourselves.

Also another thing I thought of in relation to the OP; we are currently at a state where we understand "too much" of the code behind it all, that it's pretty much impossible making vast changes to the foundation of it because we would notice or we atleast ask
- "Why the hell doesn't it / does it work like this... it makes no sense?"

I mean... if our workings towards creating AI or hyperrealistic simulations are halted forcefully, it would be like stopping a kid from bouncing a ball into the ground, after he's done it 100 times.

BUT HEY... I'm still open for us being the 1: 1000.000.000, but I'm also completely open for me winning the lottery.

hehe, if the engine is listening; this would probably be the easiest way to quell oppostion please us to silence haha.