I don’t see the probability-estimation causality here—I don’t understand your priors if you’re updating this way. If we’re in a simulation, the fact that we’re making some progress on AI-like modeling doesn’t seem to DEPEND on being in that simulation. If we’re on the “outside”, and are actually in a “natural” universe, this kind of transformer doesn’t seem to provide any evidence on whether we can create full-fidelity simulations in the future.
The simulation hypothesis DEPENDS on the simulation being self-contained enough that there are no in-universe tests which can prove or disprove it, AND on being detailed enough to contain agents of sufficient complexity to wonder whether it’s a simulation. Neither of those requirements are informed by current technological advances or measurements.
Note: I currently think of the simulation hypothesis as similar to MWI in quantum mechanics—it’s a model that cannot be proven or disproven, and has zero impact on predicting future experiences of humans (or other in-universe intelligences).
″...this kind of transformer doesn’t seem to provide any evidence on whether we can create full-fidelity simulations in the future.”
My point wasn’t that WE would create full-fidelity simulations in the future. There’s a decent likelihood that WE will all be made extinct by AI. My point was that future AI might create full-fidelity simulations, long after we are gone.
“I currently think of the simulation hypothesis as similar to MWI in quantum mechanics—it’s a model that cannot be proven or disproven...”
Ironically, I believe many observable phenomena in quantum mechanics provide strong support (or what you might call “proof”) for the simulation hypothesis—or at least for the existence of a deeper/”information level” “under” the quantum level of our universe. Here’s a short, informal article I wrote about how one such phenomenon (wave function collapse) supports the idea of an information level (if not the entire simulation hypothesis).
[EDIT: The title of the article reflects how MWI needs a supplemental interpretation involving a “deeper/information” level. From this, you can infer my point.]
Also, the fact that something can’t currently be proven or disproven does not mean it isn’t true (and that it won’t be “proven” in the future). Such has been the case for many theories at first, including general relativity, evolution through natural selection, etc.
I don’t see the probability-estimation causality here—I don’t understand your priors if you’re updating this way. If we’re in a simulation, the fact that we’re making some progress on AI-like modeling doesn’t seem to DEPEND on being in that simulation. If we’re on the “outside”, and are actually in a “natural” universe, this kind of transformer doesn’t seem to provide any evidence on whether we can create full-fidelity simulations in the future.
The simulation hypothesis DEPENDS on the simulation being self-contained enough that there are no in-universe tests which can prove or disprove it, AND on being detailed enough to contain agents of sufficient complexity to wonder whether it’s a simulation. Neither of those requirements are informed by current technological advances or measurements.
Note: I currently think of the simulation hypothesis as similar to MWI in quantum mechanics—it’s a model that cannot be proven or disproven, and has zero impact on predicting future experiences of humans (or other in-universe intelligences).
″...this kind of transformer doesn’t seem to provide any evidence on whether we can create full-fidelity simulations in the future.”
My point wasn’t that WE would create full-fidelity simulations in the future. There’s a decent likelihood that WE will all be made extinct by AI. My point was that future AI might create full-fidelity simulations, long after we are gone.
“I currently think of the simulation hypothesis as similar to MWI in quantum mechanics—it’s a model that cannot be proven or disproven...”
Ironically, I believe many observable phenomena in quantum mechanics provide strong support (or what you might call “proof”) for the simulation hypothesis—or at least for the existence of a deeper/”information level” “under” the quantum level of our universe. Here’s a short, informal article I wrote about how one such phenomenon (wave function collapse) supports the idea of an information level (if not the entire simulation hypothesis).
[EDIT: The title of the article reflects how MWI needs a supplemental interpretation involving a “deeper/information” level. From this, you can infer my point.]
https://medium.com/@ameliajones3.14/a-deeper-world-supplement-to-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-wave-function-collapse-54eccf4cad30
Also, the fact that something can’t currently be proven or disproven does not mean it isn’t true (and that it won’t be “proven” in the future). Such has been the case for many theories at first, including general relativity, evolution through natural selection, etc.