3 ms·
1. is basically trying to create general AI. If you can make a simulation that is self aware, you've created intelligence. 2. is pointless. You can't. If while
by bena 7y ago
1. is basically trying to create general AI. If you can make a simulation that is self aware, you've created intelligence.
2. is pointless. You can't. If while playing a video game, the game character turned to the screen and made a plea to you, would you listen? Or would you assume that it was a really weird game?
- ccvannorman 7y agoI'd listen and play along. What fun! A new friend that came from INSIDE the game? Maybe I'll take the lead when I meet Creator: "I have a QUEST for you.."
- jotm 7y ago2. Debug, reset NPCs
- nathanlied 7y agoOn 2, it widely depends. If I set out to create a game with 'advanced' AI (say, an algorithm actually capable of some form of self-learning, theoretically), and that happened, I'd hear it out. After all, the point is to make it smart, though I'd think no one would create a game to test out that level of algorithm - too costly. Similarly, if someone published a game with that level of possibility, they'd likely make it a huge selling point. However, if our universe is a simulation, I'd posit that whoever created it has a reasonable assumption that self-aware life could arise from the experiment. Now, whether "self-aware life" is as important an achievement, or something to be preserved, to them as our current society... No one can answer that without being completely speculative - even if we do prove we're a simulation.
- bitL 7y ago2. is more like an ant trying to overshoot its importance; a very limited being running inside a very limited universe demanding stupid things from the point of view of extraverse. You would probably laugh but most likely become angry at the ant's stupidity.