The first comment on the site illustrates (depressingly) well how this type of speculation is being perceived by the average uneducated person: Wow this was

The first comment on the site illustrates (depressingly) well how this type of speculation is being perceived by the average uneducated person: Wow this was a really good article. I didn't realize that we are so close to simulating consciousness. and this part: "In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed." is that true? That blew my mind. I'm not sure if its superfluous to even state this here on HN, but I feel compelled to: We are not "close" to simulating consciousness, and the whole quantum thing doesn't actually work like you've been led to believe. First of all, there is a whole spectrum of simulation software to consider. The most Matrix-like method is a direct 3D game-like environment with really good graphics where many parameters of our current environment are hard-coded and everything is executed with the human inhabitant in mind. This is probably close to what the article is trying to invoke if for no other reason than "it's easy to understand". It's also the one which least conforms to our observations. If the universe is being simulated, it's more likely a bottom-up simulation where things like planets, plants, and eventually people simply emerge instead of being designed outright. For all intents and purposes, such a universe would be indistinguishable from a "natural" one, so much so it's bordering on pointlessness even arguing about it. Second, simulating consciousness (or rather more precisely: designing and running human-like minds on a digital substrate) directly is not something we're particularly close to. We are still missing important engineering details about human brains to recreate them, and likewise generalised AGI research also has some gaps in understanding how to build advanced problem solving machines. Depending on the chosen method of "simulation", from full no-shortcuts whole brain emulation probably being the most expensive to fast and memory-optimised non-human AGI being the more efficient, we might already have enough raw computing power to drive a mind using just a couple of desktop computers. What we're missing though is the right software. I'm also getting really tired about this whole "observer" misunderstanding whenever quantum physics is invoked. I can't help but feel this was an intentional consequence when they chose their terminology. To this day it remains a poor choice of wording. The agenda behind this might not only be designed to sell books to New Age lunatics, but also to enable pseudo-religious excursions undertaken by otherwise respectable scientists such as Penrose.