>including

*especially

Over what time period? Immediately, I think Microsoft, since frankly Google has hesitated and is attempting to put out an old product that is (not yet at least) living up to ChatGPT (despite it also being old). In the long run DeepMind may give Google an advantage though.

​

I voted for Microsoft on the assumption this was immediate/short term.

Yeah, the argument assumes that the simulation is the "detail-on-demand" kind, meaning that when the simulated people run their own simulation, the real computer in base reality has to provide a tremendous amount of new detail -- roughly the same amount as is allocated for their world (assuming they run the same kind of simulation as the one they occupy).

So, for example, if the sims have just 10 simulations running simultaneously, the simulation they occupy will consume 11 times more computational resources than before (including memory). Even if the computer in base reality grows to the size of an entire galaxy, just one more level down means now you need ten galaxies. All this just to keep your single sub-simulation-incorporating simulation running.

I think it's more likely that the simulators will nip the problem in the bud by halting the sim just before sub-simulations become possible, thus also preventing sub-sub-simulations and sub-sub-sub simulations and so on. After all, the thing they're probably simulating is their own historical singularity, so once sub-simulations become possible, the simulation has pretty much run its course.

As someone who has been here since 2016, I consider myself a "legacy user." I think this sub is focused too much on commercial AI and not enough on the theory of artificial general intelligence, exponential growth, and intelligence explosion. December was nothing but ChatGPT screenshots. The userbase has shifted from readers of Kurzweil and Bostrom to those who are only here because of the endless AI news coverage. Many of the comments are to the effect "wow! AGI tomorrow" as this place functions like an endless hype train. I suppose to some extent this was inevitable, but it's still I think a regression in my view.

People in this sub assume that we can go from word prediction engines (ChatGPT) to artificial general intelligence while dismissing the numerous breakthroughs needed to reach that milestone. No one here understands the theory behind how AI actually works so it's more based on sentiment than fact. I need to find a small community of people who actually enjoy reading AI papers.

Edit: This sub has done well by remaining apolitical and largely focused on topic, but I really fear that this sub could devolve into a kind of hype machine echo chamber, and I fear that we're already there. Take someone like u/ideasware who understood the development of AI as tragic and very possibly apocalyptic. No one here seems to want to get into the finer details of how things could go very wrong.

Always question anything you read on the internet, including what GPT tells you 🙂

😶

Code is inherently political.

If the simulators are digital beings themselves, then the occupants of the sim could be preserved just by moving them.

>It was authored in 1993.

ChatGPT did me dirty. Prior to that comment I asked it to remind me who wrote the essay and when. It said 1983, and then I failed to look at the date on the essay itself.

Good catch.

Right? It's one thing to be angry and cynical on the normal reddits, but on a reddit that is specifically called futurism it's quite sad.

Some kind of weird team sport.

It was authored in 1993.

He noted that he’d “be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030.” So unless you’re accusing Vinge of “relative-time ambiguity” maybe you can cut him some slack?

What?

There should be a sticky about dangers of pessimism and how philosophical pessimism ought to be applied.

My fault its vid to vid and vid+text to vid

Yes you are correct vid + text to vid

Yes, and the rate at which it grows is accelerating. How appropriate!

Start here https://lifearchitect.ai/papers/

Mmmm, is this text to video or style transfer on to video? It's a bit of a blurry line, but when I think of text to video, I think of imagen video. Also I think Runaway is calling this video to video

So far we are not at the stage where the Singularity is likely to be imminent, contrary to what some people here say. That means we probably have anywhere from 1 to 3 decades for the “good” people to coordinate and plan ways for it to happen in a more beneficial way or stop it from happening at all if that is deemed more desirable. That is really what people should be using this sub for, not just idle speculation.

vid to vid not text to vid

The Singularity, as it was originally imagined, included potential scenarios for transhumanism over a technological singularity. The original essay is still well worth the read, even 30 years later.

But the doomsday scenario the essay was ultimately warning against was that the Singularity would occur rapidly as a shocking cascade of events.

Perhaps in the "pet human" scenario, a benevolent ASI might slowly augment people as individuals.

Regardless, the problem is one of alignment, and I don't think you or I have much say in that. Even if a relatively benevolent organization like OpenAI develops the first AGI, their competitors (like, say, China's AI research efforts) won't be so benevolent.

As in capitalism, the most unethical strategy will tend to dominate ethical strategies. The "bad" AIs will win any race.

[deleted]

Well unlike most people on this sub, I think transhumanism should be prioritized over the creation of AGI. I’m more interested in AI serving us as tools or augmenting our capabilities than ruling over us. Furthermore, you absolutely could have continuity of consciousness as long as augmentation happened in a ship of Theseus way, say by gradually boosting your IQ by 20 points every year instead of all at once.

You know a lot of people have partners and they still go on social media, right?