People do seem to report phenomena which look like they might be simulation-induced glitches.
For example, whenever people report phenomena which look like “Jungian synchronicity” then, on one hand, we might want to keep an open mind and not necessarily jump to a conclusion that we are seeing “more synchronicity than would be natural under a non-simulation assumption”.
It’s not that easy to distinguish between effects induced by human psychology and observational biases and effects which exist on their own.
But on the other hand, if one wants to implement a simulation, one wants to save computational resources and to compute certain shared things “just once”, and if one is willing to allow higher level of coincidences than normal, one can save tons of computations.
It might be that “glaring” and “obvious” bugs are mostly being fixed, but “subtle bugs” (like “too much synchronicity” due to shared computations) might remain...
People do seem to report phenomena which look like they might be simulation-induced glitches.
For example, whenever people report phenomena which look like “Jungian synchronicity” then, on one hand, we might want to keep an open mind and not necessarily jump to a conclusion that we are seeing “more synchronicity than would be natural under a non-simulation assumption”.
It’s not that easy to distinguish between effects induced by human psychology and observational biases and effects which exist on their own.
But on the other hand, if one wants to implement a simulation, one wants to save computational resources and to compute certain shared things “just once”, and if one is willing to allow higher level of coincidences than normal, one can save tons of computations.
It might be that “glaring” and “obvious” bugs are mostly being fixed, but “subtle bugs” (like “too much synchronicity” due to shared computations) might remain...