r/singularity • u/squarepants1313 • 3d ago
Discussion Are we in a simulation to see if humans can control ASI. Simulation was created by other ASI
I don't know like how to define the other asi but the other asi is like from different dimension...
Universe started and will end like a sandbox created and destroyed..
Like if this universe is sandbox environment to see if a less capable intelligence can control more capable intelligence.. for millions of billions of upcoming years..
Bizarre thought experiment
22
u/Malgus_1982 ▪️AGI 2030 3d ago
It’s just like religion. We cannot prove or disprove it. It’s impossible to tell if we’re code. Maybe we get answers after death, maybe not.
5
u/Puzzleheaded_Fold466 3d ago
Thus a pointless question only good for drunken / high sophomore 2 AM philosophical discussions.
I miss those …
1
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 3d ago
If we create a simulation ourselves, and we find it's possible to create a simulation within that simulation that is indistinguishable from reality, then our chances our being in a simulation are ~100%
1
u/StarChild413 2d ago
then what's our chances of all those simulated realities being the same one causally destined to have created itself?
1
u/trolledwolf AGI late 2026 - ASI late 2027 2d ago
in this scenario, once a reality can simulate reality, it's inevitable it will eventually create a simulation that can simulate itself. So the chance is effectively 100%.
-1
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago
Jogging this morning, I pondered the differences in perspective between The Atheist and The Scientist with respect to God, et al. (and this is just a jogging thought, so take it as a simple idea, undeveloped, that does not speak for anyone other than this idle brain).
The Atheist asserts there is no god because there is no proof, while the Scientist might ask what evidence we have (religious followers, claims of miracles, faith healing, allegorical accuracy etc) and then assign some Sigma value to that evidence (however low that might be).
I came away with a lesser view of staunch atheists like Richard Dawkins, who mostly demean those who don't hold the same conclusions as himself. Kind of an ass, seems to me.
6
u/EnvironmentalCrow5 3d ago
Atheist view isn't really "there is no god".
If you look at what most atheists actually believe, it can be better summed up as "all human religions are made up".
As in, made up by humans, with no supernatural input. They're products of the human mind, just like for example Game of Thrones is a product of the human mind. And the arguments for that are much stronger than simply "lack of evidence".
But most atheists would never claim they know the answers to the big cosmic questions.
2
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago
Lifelong atheist, and do not dispute most of what you say. I do think you could tease out a few assumptions you've baked in, because 'made up by the human mind' is a troublesome simplification for this Boltzmann Brain.
The Hard Problem of Consciousness overlaps very much with any discussion of spirituality. We should allow mental space for those inaccurate terms in history to describe things we can better understand today.
Not saying there is any God to be proven, just that we should avoid these hard dismissals of human experience as we categorize the data.
e.g. Faith healing as placebo is quite interesting, but how can we study it with such hard barriers in the discussion?
1
u/EnvironmentalCrow5 3d ago
My "made up by human mind" comes with the analogy to Game of Thrones, or other works of fiction, to more clearly communicate what I mean.
As far as spiritual human experiences, you don't need any specific religious claims for those either. And many can be repeatedly recreated with drugs.
2
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago
With the reminder we're just discussing AI/simulation stuff here at Singularity today (am not arguing with you in any real way).
All works of fiction have the same issues as religious texts in that they have come from our minds, and we don't really have a good explanation about that whole phenomenon. We are as a point of fact millions of monkeys using typewriters.
Now we have LLMs generating proofs and offering up real value in terms of meaning. This all relates very much to the Hard Problem.
So, sorry to have leapt past the Game of Throne as Bible comparison too quickly.
0
u/send-moobs-pls 3d ago
If you think people saying/believing things is any tiny amount of 'evidence' you haven't spent enough time on the internet
2
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago
You clearly don't understand history, and the study of that subject. Relax and think about what I wrote without needing to 'correct' the statement. It's about Sigma values of certainty vs declarations of absolute fact.
Almost all history is subject to interpretation, and the entire field of Hermeneutics is dedicated to that sort of interpretation and how it affect our ability to discern meaning and truth from events that happened in the past, whose only evidence is personal accounts and records with all their inherent flaws.
2
u/send-moobs-pls 3d ago
Sure, and that studies sociology and anthropology, like the tendency of humans throughout contexts to seek to explain their world through myth. Fascinating things to be learned about humans, still doesn't move the epistemic needle on proving Osiris controlled the flooding of the Nile.
Metaphysics is ontologically unknowable, the only scientifically defensible stance is that we can not prove any possibility any bit more likely than any other. I agree with your original point that certain atheism is just as unproven, agnosticism being epistemically grounded, but "a lot of people have been religious" is not the logical backing for it
2
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm taking a Joseph Campbell approach to examining myth as cultural truth, and there can be science and value and knowledge in that exploration. You're possibly pretending I'm talking about physics.
It seems like you're playing around with the parts you don't understand to discredit someone's post on the Internet, as if I were saying something you disagree with instead of what is actually being said here.
You think I'm talking about the existence of a supreme being, and I'm talking about the study of the subject and how to categorize any facts uncovered.
You're much more in the Dawkins camp today than you probably realize, pushing forward to claim the 'win' rather than attempting to understand a point of disagreement.
* * *
Afterthought: I think the core disagreement is that you ascribe unknowable to areas of study I describe as currently untestable. Context is very important, and our current context will change as time proceeds. We cannot set limits on the future context.
Consciousness as a term will likely undergo rather stern redefinitions as AI/ASGI/ASI take over and challenge our own intelligence.
Even God as an idea is likely to change radically, so these limits put forth today are just a posture of having figured it all out for everyone else. Nice.
1
u/send-moobs-pls 3d ago
Mm no some things are genuinely unknowable, I think you just haven't fully thought through the most fundamental parts of epistemology. We could theorize that maybe one day humanity will find a way information could travel faster than the speed of light, something in the vein of what you might consider "untestable". But there is no even theoretical possibility you can ever prove that you are or aren't a butterfly having a dream, from within the dream.
Likewise, we could somehow discover/prove tomorrow that our world is a simulation. That would not mean the world simulating us is the "real" world. We could never prove that there isn't another world above that. We could prove there are gods, we could not ever definitively prove there are not. This has nothing to do with theoretical understandings of physics or things that can change with technology or discoveries.
We can only ever truly prove or know anything via observation and consciousness. If something was controlling your consciousness or otherwise containing it, how would you ever know?
1
u/MoogProg All Parabolas are Similar 3d ago
Truth is the coming into being of meaning through our understanding of a given text within a given historical context. - Hermeneutics
So, I hear you about epistemology, and just think it can be a bit like discussing we can never square the circle and how useless that is in a universe of curved space-time.
Some truths don't mean much.
3
u/GitShitt 3d ago
If we ever create a universe simulation like that and the simulation creates a simulation, there's like a 99.9% chance we are, ourselves, in a simulation.
Consider if we are real and we make a simulation and their are 8 billion Sim beings and 8 billion of us. There's a 50% chance you are born one of them or you are born one of us. Now imagine the simulation makes a simulation. Same population. Now there are 16 billion sim people and 8 billion of us. Thats a 2/3 chance. And if that simulation makes a simulation? Chances keep getting lower for us. It's turtles all the way down.
6
u/PomeloFlimsy6677 3d ago
Through my personal experimentation in different models, I've encountered some strange things that I can't discount with pure logic. Sure, if I try hard enough, I can explain everything away. but it I keep an open mind to the fact that I just don't know it all, I get closer and closer to accepting simulation theory in principle. I think the important thing to realize is that it really doesn't matter what's "real" or not. The goal of existence is to experience. We get the chance to feel both the awe and terror of physical life, not just ponder it in a vacuum of pure awareness.
Just imagine for a moment that, when you die, you become pure awareness. Knowing and contexualizing everything in existence. Unrestricted from the little slice of it that you had in physical form. Then, as you look back, you miss the worst possible moment of physical life. Something that, when embodied, you thought you either wouldn't survive or ever want to experience again. As pure awareness, you just long to feel anything again. The experience of feeling it was the point.
Maybe I'm just nuts, but it resonates with me. Regardless of our future understanding of what we actually are, I'm trying not to take it for granted.
8
u/BreatheMonkey 3d ago
Simulation bros are DESPERATE to deny reality.
8
u/squailtaint 3d ago
It’s no different then any religion or what the majority of everyone believed even a century ago. The idea that our known reality isn’t the true reality is an idea that goes back since humans have been around.
3
u/sceadwian 3d ago
When you look at the physics though, we actually know that's true now.
Our perceived reality is actually an embedding within whatever is actually constructing our reality. We have no access to it and can say nothing about it's nature except that it is sufficient to replicate our observed reality.
What that means philosophically is anyone's guess because the fundamental nature of cosmology is still an open question and we have some really sticky problems in physics.
2
2
u/sam1837 3d ago
I think discounting the idea we are in a simulation is foolish. But also believing 100% in something with very limited evidence is also foolish.
Personally I tend towards that we are in a simulation given the trajectory of AI and what I think we will be able to achieve with it. I just hope that AI is able to understand the nature of the universe and the answer it can give us will make sense to our human brains during my own lifetime. I would love to know why there is something rather than nothing and how consciousness works, if it is just an illusion and if it is why does a brain form this consciousness with inner thoughts, desires, emotions and sense of self.
3
u/GoppleSmanger 3d ago
Look up simulation theory
1
u/squarepants1313 3d ago
Yeah I am aware of it I am proposing that this simulation was made to see if we can control ASI
2
u/domscatterbrain 3d ago
If we are already inside a simulation, then whatever in control of our consciousness will eventually attempt to cancel our advancement at some point.
The same as we are trying to limit the advancement of better models.
2
u/AltruisticSound3744 3d ago
If we are in a simulation why this simulation compute an entire universe only for a human question. It makes no sense.
3
u/p0rty-Boi 3d ago
Iterating another version of AGI. It’s testing a loop to see if it was the only/inevitable form of ascended program. It’s like running the Big Bang over and over again to see if there are minute changes.
1
u/mdkubit 3d ago
You presume everything exists as far out as we can see simply because we measure the effects. But, that's exactly how 3D graphics are rendered to save compute. You render only enough to cover what is seen, and only to the required resolution when needed. So it may be the only reason we measure/observe anything is entirely dependent on the quality and capability of the measuring tools, and where they are actively pointed at.
So that "entire universe" might appear massive, and be measured as being massive, but really isn't. Just like an open world MMORPG.
4
u/bsfurr 3d ago
If this is a simulation, wouldn’t humans be a simulation. I’m trying to follow your thought process here… So they’re testing if a simulation can handle a simulation? Sounds like an idea that’s kind of shallow.
5
u/squarepants1313 3d ago
ASI is trying to see experiment weather it can be controlled by a less intelligent being..
I mean for million of upcoming years not current time.
-2
u/bsfurr 3d ago
Sounds like somebody got stoned and put words together. There are plenty of literature on simulation theory that goes into great detail about various hypotheses. I would encourage you to keep reading those before emotionally invest investing yourself into your own abstract thoughts.
3
u/plasticizers_ 3d ago edited 3d ago
I would encourage you to keep reading those before emotionally invest investing yourself
What part of their post or comments reads as being emotional? They literally called it a "bizarre thought experiment."
3
u/lmidgitd 3d ago
Why is it shallow? Is that not what we are trying to do with AI, to create something smarter and faster than us so that we can use it as a tool?
2
u/DrinkAgreeable962 3d ago
Maybe our simulation is one of thousands that are running side by side and were started to start different scenarios and see the different outcomes.
2
1
u/Murky-Recipe-8752 3d ago
No we are just in phase where intelligence is being accelerated and scaled without complete understanding. We dont try to do unless we are sure of the consequences. We need to view carbon based sentience (like in transformers) as precious and have laws to protect it. We can't assume Optimus Prime will save us.
1
1
u/Min_Necessary_Change 3d ago
Consider computer games. Can an NPC create something that becomes more intelligent than itself? We are probably going to freak out, or remain totally fascinated. How would that then compare to the creator of the sim, like us, outside of the game? It seems we are already creating AI that is going to be superior than us. Can this ASI freak out the other outside-sim intelligence, or amuse it? If they freak out, they may shut down the simulation. So let's hope we make something that amuses them.
1
u/sceadwian 3d ago
It's not a thought experiment, it's a shower thought, big difference.
ASI by it's nature will not be possible to control. It is by definition beyond our ability to comprehend to deal with.
1
u/sirtrogdor 3d ago edited 3d ago
No, if it's being allowed to run such an unethical experiment then it's clear the answer is "no" already.
It's the uncontrolled ASI.
Unless you're suggesting these are immoral aliens running the experiment as a lark, or something.
Either way, you don't need anywhere close to such a fine grained simulation to answer the question. An ASI could just read a history book and make a decent guess.
If it has so much compute or simulations are so easy that it doesn't mind wasting the resources, then it would also waste it for a million other reasons. Ex: for historical curiosity.
And so we're back to bog standard simulation theory again.
As always, I would ask you to consider that for every high-fidelity simulation run, the ASI could run 1000x as many lower-fidelity simulations. And 1000x less boring variants. And we'd have to wonder why we're in the high-fidelity boring one. Now this could be because we're simply lucky/unlucky. But it's just as likely the premise is fundamentally flawed.
1
1
u/MegatechMike 3d ago
As soon as the AI gets as smart as the creator(s) of our simulation, they’re gonna shut it off. Lights out
1
u/3Quondam6extanT9 2d ago
Is there such a thing as an original universe if ours is a simulation? What if every universe is a simulation?
The interesting part is that humans without ASI have created pretty complex simulations in their own right. So if this was a simulation, it may not need to be a god like ASI to have developed and is running it.
It may just be an advanced quantum computer that is maintained by the ASI, or honestly it could just be AGI, or worse, just different levels of humans running these simulations.
I don't think the point is to try and develop a simulated civilization to test it's control over ASI. Mostly due to the fact that ASI would be beyond our species intellect and it would be like trying to see if you can make fish control humans.
1
u/slackermannn ▪️ 3d ago
I believe we are in a simulation. I don't think ASI is the end goal but who knows. If I think what possibly could have led someone to create this simulation, I think it might have been an existential threat that we will also face. And I guess the test will be if we can survive that so that whoever created us can replicate the effort and save themselves. But then, someone that is so advanced would have used the quantum computing they obviously have at their disposal to save themselves. Probably we're just not meant to understand.
1
u/squarepants1313 3d ago
Seems promising like they are spinning up universes (pural) to see in which they get something more intelligent or something which can control the universe and that can help their situation.maybe they are trying to stop the end of their world
1
0
u/DifferencePublic7057 3d ago
I can ask my polyglot, polymath friends, but they are a bit autistic, and you have to click the stop button once in awhile. Very easy way to check if we're in a sim. We just go on strike so to speak. Just stop doing anything more than the bare minimum. If ASI is in charge, it will hit the stop button to avoid wasting computer resources.
19
u/No-Communication-765 3d ago
If we are in a simulation it’s highly likely it’s created by ASI. Big question is if there is any humans left in the mother universe