3 ms·

We're going to be able to simulate any period of time (for which we have or can simulate data) and transport ourselves there. This is going to be amazing. At

by echelon 6mo ago

We're going to be able to simulate any period of time (for which we have or can simulate data) and transport ourselves there. This is going to be amazing. At some point I'm going to data mine all of my old internet AIM and IRC chats, emails, old laptop hard drives, essays, etc. and go nostalgia/core on it. I have old video and audio recordings too. Lots of stuff for reminiscent inference. Every day I'm finding it harder to believe we're not already in a simulation.

mbgerring 6mo ago
> Every day I'm finding it harder to believe we're not already in a simulation. Seek help before it’s too late.
- echelon 6mo ago
  Dude, I'm having a blast. I love life. Terminally online doomerism is what needs to be reined in. This tech is legitimately the jet packs we dreamed of as kids. It's better, even.
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    One can be excited for the future of LLMs while also acknowledging that the progress isn't simulated. It's cool, but not miraculous.
    - jsnider3 6mo ago
      Do you have an actual counter to the simulation argument or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
      - redsocksfan45 6mo ago
        [dead]
      - jstanley 6mo ago
        The counter is that if it is possible to simulate the universe, then all of our experiences drop out of the structure of the simulation, independent of whether any computer is executing the simulation. In the same way that 42 remains 42 even after the calculator is switched off, your experience of reality inside the "simulation" remains even after the simulator is switched off. All the simulator does is expose the contents of the simulation to one who is outside it. It does nothing for those of us who are inside it, our experiences were there all along. All possible configurations of the game of life "exist" inside the infinite structure of the game of life, independently of whether you evaluate them so that you can see how they proceed. All possible chess games "exist" inside the infinite structure of chess, independently of whether you play them out.
      - bigyabai 6mo ago
        Yes. My counterpoint is that I don't need simulated-earth theory to justify LLM progress any more than I accuse the sunrise of being a simulacrum.
- K0balt 6mo ago
  As far as I know the epistemological conundrum of whether or not we exist in a simulation remains unsolved, and I believe the settled thought is that we are nearly infinitely more likely to be in one than to not be in one, based to the assumption of an infinity adjacent universe, and the ontological theory that it is in fact possible to construct a simulation whose construction is transparent to it’s inhabitants. So I wouldn’t be so quick as to write that off. I would especially expect adherents to various religions to understand simulation as a probable foundational mechanism of their faith, considering that many religions essentially directly imply the formation of the universe as information based… but then science seems to be converging on information being the fundamental ether as well, so who knows.
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation. Moon landing? Simulated. Quantum mechanics? Not natural, entirely simulated. My dog disappearing every week to pester my gereiatric neighbor for Beggin' Strips? He's actually being cached in a localized foveal dimension that ceases to exist when I look away from him. Causality is convoluted and complex, the urge to ignore it has always overcome the less-curious individuals that are predisposed to hysteria and listlessness. Citing LLMs as the latest reason why we're simulated is not going to precipitate some scientific revolution in the understanding of reality. The underlying mechanics of text synthesis are easy to learn, they just don't want to learn it.
    - K0balt 6mo ago
      > By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation. I don’t think that is what I was saying. The simulation hypothesis is not based on things being unexplained, but rather by the probability of existence in a root universe or in a spawned simulated one. This presumes a condition where life evolves and creates simulations, and those simulations then create simulations. The idea is the probability of being in the single “real” universe versus being in one of the infinitely more numerous simulations. Basically infinity vs infinity^infinity. It’s much more likely to be in the n=infinity^infinity set, rather than the mere infinite set. It’s purely a statistical proposition, with charitable assumptions about the possibility of creating simulations of arbitrary complexity. If you were interpreting my religion reference, what I meant was assertions adjacent to statements like “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Which are found in many religions. In my understanding this would seem to mean that information was the foundational underpinning of all reality, physical and spiritual.
squigz 6mo ago
This assumes that written data from a particular time period actually reflects what it was like in that time period, and isn't highly biased to select for, say, particular socioeconomic classes.
- wazoox 6mo ago
  Yep. Until the very recent boom of social networks, everything published is, by definition, the product of the educated and the upper classes. The farther back you're going, the more estranged from ordinary people you are. In the Middle Ages, you'll have nothing but texts about the adventures of saints and kings.
  - squigz 6mo ago
    And of course, even with social media, there is still a large bias issue - not just with who is sharing, but also what; most people don't share everything about their lives on social media.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
tux 6mo ago
Combining AI with VR we can even achieve something like time travel ;-)
- echelon 6mo ago
  That's what I'm talking about! This is going to be so amazing.
  - Phemist 6mo ago
    The TV Series Devs explores this concept as well. It is decently executed, but it is a bit too cringe for my liking (supposedly world-class "devs" working on those keyboards you often see in museums, the protagonist having a fibonacci-off to establish engineering creds). Anyway, might be fun!
    - mghackerlady 6mo ago
      >keyboards you often see in museums like what? the model M? you can take my buckling springs from my cold dead hands
      - Phemist 6mo ago
        I meant the ones you see on those infotainment systems in museums that are super durable, but have terrible ergonomics. The show props those up way too much.
- lukan 6mo ago
  Simulated time travel. Kind of a difference to me.
  - echelon 6mo ago
    In the limit, would you know the difference? Maybe this is simulated time travel right now and you're experiencing it in an "enhanced realism" state. Totally non-scientific hullabaloo, but fun to daydream about.

by echelon 6mo ago

mbgerring 6mo ago

> Every day I'm finding it harder to believe we're not already in a simulation. Seek help before it’s too late.

echelon 6mo ago
Dude, I'm having a blast. I love life. Terminally online doomerism is what needs to be reined in. This tech is legitimately the jet packs we dreamed of as kids. It's better, even.
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  One can be excited for the future of LLMs while also acknowledging that the progress isn't simulated. It's cool, but not miraculous.
  - jsnider3 6mo ago
    Do you have an actual counter to the simulation argument or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
    - redsocksfan45 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - jstanley 6mo ago
      The counter is that if it is possible to simulate the universe, then all of our experiences drop out of the structure of the simulation, independent of whether any computer is executing the simulation. In the same way that 42 remains 42 even after the calculator is switched off, your experience of reality inside the "simulation" remains even after the simulator is switched off. All the simulator does is expose the contents of the simulation to one who is outside it. It does nothing for those of us who are inside it, our experiences were there all along. All possible configurations of the game of life "exist" inside the infinite structure of the game of life, independently of whether you evaluate them so that you can see how they proceed. All possible chess games "exist" inside the infinite structure of chess, independently of whether you play them out.
    - bigyabai 6mo ago
      Yes. My counterpoint is that I don't need simulated-earth theory to justify LLM progress any more than I accuse the sunrise of being a simulacrum.
K0balt 6mo ago
As far as I know the epistemological conundrum of whether or not we exist in a simulation remains unsolved, and I believe the settled thought is that we are nearly infinitely more likely to be in one than to not be in one, based to the assumption of an infinity adjacent universe, and the ontological theory that it is in fact possible to construct a simulation whose construction is transparent to it’s inhabitants. So I wouldn’t be so quick as to write that off. I would especially expect adherents to various religions to understand simulation as a probable foundational mechanism of their faith, considering that many religions essentially directly imply the formation of the universe as information based… but then science seems to be converging on information being the fundamental ether as well, so who knows.
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation. Moon landing? Simulated. Quantum mechanics? Not natural, entirely simulated. My dog disappearing every week to pester my gereiatric neighbor for Beggin' Strips? He's actually being cached in a localized foveal dimension that ceases to exist when I look away from him. Causality is convoluted and complex, the urge to ignore it has always overcome the less-curious individuals that are predisposed to hysteria and listlessness. Citing LLMs as the latest reason why we're simulated is not going to precipitate some scientific revolution in the understanding of reality. The underlying mechanics of text synthesis are easy to learn, they just don't want to learn it.
  - K0balt 6mo ago
    > By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation. I don’t think that is what I was saying. The simulation hypothesis is not based on things being unexplained, but rather by the probability of existence in a root universe or in a spawned simulated one. This presumes a condition where life evolves and creates simulations, and those simulations then create simulations. The idea is the probability of being in the single “real” universe versus being in one of the infinitely more numerous simulations. Basically infinity vs infinity^infinity. It’s much more likely to be in the n=infinity^infinity set, rather than the mere infinite set. It’s purely a statistical proposition, with charitable assumptions about the possibility of creating simulations of arbitrary complexity. If you were interpreting my religion reference, what I meant was assertions adjacent to statements like “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Which are found in many religions. In my understanding this would seem to mean that information was the foundational underpinning of all reality, physical and spiritual.

squigz 6mo ago

This assumes that written data from a particular time period actually reflects what it was like in that time period, and isn't highly biased to select for, say, particular socioeconomic classes.

wazoox 6mo ago
Yep. Until the very recent boom of social networks, everything published is, by definition, the product of the educated and the upper classes. The farther back you're going, the more estranged from ordinary people you are. In the Middle Ages, you'll have nothing but texts about the adventures of saints and kings.
- squigz 6mo ago
  And of course, even with social media, there is still a large bias issue - not just with who is sharing, but also what; most people don't share everything about their lives on social media.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]

tux 6mo ago

Combining AI with VR we can even achieve something like time travel ;-)

echelon 6mo ago
That's what I'm talking about! This is going to be so amazing.
- Phemist 6mo ago
  The TV Series Devs explores this concept as well. It is decently executed, but it is a bit too cringe for my liking (supposedly world-class "devs" working on those keyboards you often see in museums, the protagonist having a fibonacci-off to establish engineering creds). Anyway, might be fun!
  - mghackerlady 6mo ago
    >keyboards you often see in museums like what? the model M? you can take my buckling springs from my cold dead hands
    - Phemist 6mo ago
      I meant the ones you see on those infotainment systems in museums that are super durable, but have terrible ergonomics. The show props those up way too much.
lukan 6mo ago
Simulated time travel. Kind of a difference to me.
- echelon 6mo ago
  In the limit, would you know the difference? Maybe this is simulated time travel right now and you're experiencing it in an "enhanced realism" state. Totally non-scientific hullabaloo, but fun to daydream about.