Part 2 seems similar to the claim (which I have made in the past but not on LessWrong) that the Matrix was actually a friendly move on the part of that world’s AI.
Agent Smith did say that the first matrix was a paradise but people wouldn’t have it, but is simulating the world of 1999 really the friendliest option?
We only ever see America simulated. Even there we never see crime or oppression or poverty (homeless people could even be bots).
If you don’t simulate poverty and dictatorships then 1999 could be reasonably friendly. The economy is doing okay and the Internet exists and there is some sense that technology is expanding to meet the world’s needs but not spiraling out of control.
But I’m just making most of this up to show that an argument exists; it seems pretty clear that it was written to be in the present day to keep it in the genre of post-apocalyptic lit, in which case using the present adds to the sense of “the world is going downhill.”
And the AI kills the thousands of people in Zion every hundred years or so when they get aggressive enough to start destabilizing the Matrix, thereby threatening billions. But the AI needs to keep some outside the Matrix as a control and insurance against problems inside the Matrix. And the AI spreads the idea that the Matrix “victims” are slaves and provide energy to the AI to keep the outsiders outside (even though the energy source claims are obviously ridiculous—the people in Zion are profoundly ignorant and bordering on outright stupid). Makes more sense than the silliness of the movies anyway.
Part 2 seems similar to the claim (which I have made in the past but not on LessWrong) that the Matrix was actually a friendly move on the part of that world’s AI.
Agent Smith did say that the first matrix was a paradise but people wouldn’t have it, but is simulating the world of 1999 really the friendliest option?
We only ever see America simulated. Even there we never see crime or oppression or poverty (homeless people could even be bots).
If you don’t simulate poverty and dictatorships then 1999 could be reasonably friendly. The economy is doing okay and the Internet exists and there is some sense that technology is expanding to meet the world’s needs but not spiraling out of control.
But I’m just making most of this up to show that an argument exists; it seems pretty clear that it was written to be in the present day to keep it in the genre of post-apocalyptic lit, in which case using the present adds to the sense of “the world is going downhill.”
And the AI kills the thousands of people in Zion every hundred years or so when they get aggressive enough to start destabilizing the Matrix, thereby threatening billions. But the AI needs to keep some outside the Matrix as a control and insurance against problems inside the Matrix. And the AI spreads the idea that the Matrix “victims” are slaves and provide energy to the AI to keep the outsiders outside (even though the energy source claims are obviously ridiculous—the people in Zion are profoundly ignorant and bordering on outright stupid). Makes more sense than the silliness of the movies anyway.
This hypothesis also explains the oracle in a fairly clean way.