= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Anthropomorphic AI and Sandboxed Virtual Universes - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (123)
Just curious. A question for folks who think it possible that we may live in a sim. Are our gatekeepers simulating all Everett branches of our simulated reality, or just one of them? If just one, I'm wondering how that one was selected from the astronomical number of possibilities. And how do the gatekeepers morally justify the astronomical number of simulated lives that become ruthlessly terminated each time they arbitrarily choose to simulate one Everett branch over another?
If they are simulating all of the potential branches, wouldn't they expect that agents on at least some of the Everett branches will catch on and try to get out of the box. Wouldn't it seem suspicious if everyone were trying to look innocent? ;)
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to take this whole line of thought seriously. How is this kind of speculation any different from theology?
We run genetic algorithms where we too squish creatures without giving the matter much thought. Perhaps like that - at least in the Optimisationverse scenario.
If my simulations had even the complexity of a bacteria, I'd give it a whole lot more thought.
Doesn't mean these simulators would, but I don't think your logic works.
Generalising from what you would do to what all possible intelligent simulator constructors might do seems as though it would be a rather dubious step. There are plenty of ways they might justify this.
Right. For some reason I thought you were using universal quantification, which of course you aren't. Never mind; the "perhaps" fixes it.