4 ms·
> By contraposition, if escape from the simulation is not possible, containment of AI should be. This is a flawed argument, though. If we live in a simulation,
by bastawhiz 2y ago
> By contraposition, if escape from the simulation is not possible, containment of AI should be.
This is a flawed argument, though. If we live in a simulation, our lived experiences suggest that there's no information coming into the simulation from the outside. AI, on the other hand, has a bidirectional interface: the whole point is that we communicate with it from the outside.
If we created an AI that we listened to but never replied to—assuming the actions we took as a result of listening to the AI never provided it with feedback—it's as good as contained. We'd have to assume that not only is someone outside the simulation listening to us, but that they actually have a mechanism for replying. Information from inside the simulation escaping is sort of the whole point of a simulation (if you can't observe what you're simulating, why bother?).
It's also silly to think that we could affect the "outside". The idea of AI escaping is premised on us developing something that convinces us to do what it wants. We're simulating just a mind. The simulation we're in—if we are in a simulation—simulates every quark in every particle in every atom in every molecule in every chunk of rock in every galaxy in the universe. We're talking about building AIs that could escape while just barely managing to overcome spooky CUDA errors, while our world is an emergent fleck of dust in a corner of their simulation.
The point being: if they can simulate our entire universe, they can also simulate just a mind (in the same way that we are) that's literally infinitely more powerful (which is to say, backed by the computing resources that we consider to be "the infinite") which can out-think whatever we shout out of the simulation. Or inspect the state of the simulation and discover our true intentions. Or whatever.
Said another way, we're afraid of super intelligent AI because it's running on theoretical compute that is as powerful as we can come up with. We (and our AIs) are compute running in a rounding error of a fraction of whatever their compute is. We could build Dyson spheres around every star in our galaxy to power a computer running an unfathomably super intelligent AI and it would still be quadrillions (more?) of orders of magnitude less powerful than the hardware simulating our universe.
Therefore, the property that makes escape impossible for us isn't the interface, it's that we can't outsmart the entities outside. The playing field is different inside the simulation, because our AI is able to be smarter than us.
- andyjohnson0 2y ago> If we live in a simulation, all evidence suggests that there's no information coming into the simulation from the outside. I'm wondering what evidence (or absence thereof) you're referring to here? Thermodynamics? Would be interesting to know more.
- bastawhiz 2y agoThat's the point: we have nothing to suggest there's information coming in from the outside
- andyjohnson0 2y agoAbsence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence
- bastawhiz 2y agoPresupposing that something is possible without evidence is just religion. Which, in this case, is literally religion.
- zeroxfe 2y ago> all evidence suggests that there's no information coming into the simulation from the outside sorry, which evidence suggests this? (it's not hard to imagine an external observer feeding back into the simulation) (btw, I agree that the argument is flawed for the reasons you cite -- I don't agree that we have any evidence around whether or not there's information flow in/out of this simulation.)
- bastawhiz 2y agoDo you have any evidence of an external entity feeding information back in? If we had evidence of this, it would prove that we're in a simulation.
- shkkmo 2y ago