izumi3682
izumi3682 OP t1_ixkboei wrote
Reply to comment by algozip in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
I covered this in my all my "reality is a simulation" essays. You can read these all in my submission statement. :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/5h6wuk/are_we_living_in_a_simulation/day2hfj/
izumi3682 OP t1_ixkb038 wrote
Reply to comment by AcademicGuest in Training Our Future Rulers - Meta researchers create AI that masters (the board game) 'Diplomacy', tricking human players. Meta's Cicero can negotiate or persuade with natural language—just like a human. by izumi3682
>AI represents, unless strictly curtailed and linear, an inherit violation of human will and freedom
I am still not sure what this has to do with the development of ever more powerful AI technology. But ok.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixk9nge wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Yes, I'm sure our simulation will work out all of these iniquities at some point or other. Let's see if we can survive the "technological singularity" which I put about the year 2029, give or take two years.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixk8zo5 wrote
Reply to comment by bendyKneezBlowzTreez in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
I can't answer that question. But I can sort of infer an answer indirectly. One day we will make simulations. Not tomorrow certainly or even next Tuesday. But in 50 to 100 years? Yes. Our simulations would be beyond anything our current minds can comprehend. For that reason, the reason for making the simulations may to our minds be "unimaginable, unfathomable and incomprehensible".
So, the sims in our simulation, one day they look up at their moon and wonder what it is. Then they too are on the road to making their own sims 60,000 years hence of their reality time. To our future eyes, the simulation might be happening all at once in an instant. We are outside of their time and space. Will we be able to put ourselves into their sim. I don't see any reason why not.
I don't know, it might be just the way that reality works. Personally speaking, I have the faith of Roman Catholicism and believe that God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and reality out of pure love for us. The Roman Catholic Church has no issue with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
izumi3682 OP t1_ixk7qay wrote
Reply to comment by AcademicGuest in Training Our Future Rulers - Meta researchers create AI that masters (the board game) 'Diplomacy', tricking human players. Meta's Cicero can negotiate or persuade with natural language—just like a human. by izumi3682
What is not performed by a human? The game play? I thought the point was that the AI was learning to outplay humans in highly sophisticated incomplete information games. If I am misunderstanding your point, please explain to me what you mean.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixk6ojd wrote
Reply to Training Our Future Rulers - Meta researchers create AI that masters (the board game) 'Diplomacy', tricking human players. Meta's Cicero can negotiate or persuade with natural language—just like a human. by izumi3682
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
Here is the research paper.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade9097
From the article.
>To create Cicero, Meta pulled together AI models for strategic reasoning (similar to AlphaGo) and natural language processing (similar to GPT-3) and rolled them into one agent. During each game, Cicero looks at the state of the game board and the conversation history and predicts how other players will act. It crafts a plan that it executes through a language model that can generate human-like dialogue, allowing it to coordinate with other players.
>Meta calls Cicero's natural language skills a "controllable dialogue model," which is where the heart of Cicero's personality lies. Like GPT-3, Cicero pulls from a large corpus of Internet text scraped from the web. "To build a controllable dialogue model, we started with a 2.7 billion parameter BART-like language model pre-trained on text from the Internet and fine tuned on over 40,000 human games on webDiplomacy.net," writes Meta.
>The resulting model mastered the intricacies of a complex game. "Cicero can deduce, for example, that later in the game it will need the support of one particular player," says Meta, "and then craft a strategy to win that person’s favor—and even recognize the risks and opportunities that that player sees from their particular point of view."
So, my question is, is this an "incremental improvement" in our AI development efforts, or is this more like the "AI significantly improves every three months" level of improvement.
https://www.ml-science.com/exponential-growth
Are we seeing any evidence that AI of any form is improving significantly every 3 months?
izumi3682 OP t1_ixjawo0 wrote
Reply to comment by izumi3682 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Why is this comment downvoted? What don't you like about it.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixjap1t wrote
Reply to comment by Bunz3l in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
If no one is there for it, does a simulation crash in the woods?
izumi3682 OP t1_ixja72d wrote
Reply to comment by paint-roller in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Now that is a scary concept that hadn't occurred to me. That life is an unintentional side effect of the simulation. This goes to show that we do not have an inkling of the vastness of the laws of physics that have not yet been apprehended by humanity. So we know the laws of physics from, say, the year 1400 CE or the laws of physics from the year 2012 CE. But what will we learn new by 2030 or by 2050 or by 2100? Lots, I bet. Remember that in the year 2017 CE we did not know for sure that gravitational waves even actually existed. We were searching for them with sophisticated experiments and devices.
Having said that, I believe in my Roman Catholic faith. That God (The Most Holy Trinity) created us and our reality out of pure love for us. But the Holy Mother Church is open to almost all scientific endeavor and has no problem with scientific inquiry and understanding. God is big enough to take it ;)
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj8l8e wrote
Reply to comment by OliverSparrow in GPT-4 is Almost Here, And it Looks Better than Anything Else - As GPT-3 remains a lot ambiguous, the new model could be a fraction of the futuristic bigger models that are yet to come. by izumi3682
It is possible the entire article was written by an AI of some sort. I speculated that the second sentence could have been deliberately produced by the AI to make it look less sophisticated than it actually is. Now that is an AI being disingenuous...
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj5kam wrote
Reply to comment by proarnis1 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
You entirely miss my point. I used the demonstration of unreal engine to show how even today, very primitive today, we are already leaping over the uncanny valley of simulations failing to look like real life. Watch the development of VR, watch the development of videogames and Metaverses, like "Second Life" that has been showing how it's done since 2005, I think. Watch the development of computing processing speed, novel architecture and "big data". Watch the development of devices like the "Neuralink" and it's already extant competitors. Watch the development of ever more profoundly detailed scientific simulations of our universe and its components, based on our known laws of physics.
None of these alone lead to simulated realities that we take for real today, or may actually be real to some, for all intents and purposes. Although even today people experience addiction to these simulated realities. Addiction to video games? But all of these technologies along with some I'm probably leaving out, plus modification to the human mind (a human friendly technological singularity) will lead to genuine realities. And I think we shall all live long enough to experience them. Even somebody who is 105 years old today. But that is a whole other can of futurology worms ;)
This links to an essay I wrote that goes more in depth into my thoughts on the matter if you are further interested.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj3eve wrote
Reply to comment by imdfantom in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
What do you think a video game is? It is a simulated reality driven by imperatives (the narrative). We as the player are the mind that is experiencing the simulated reality. And with the advent of truly efficacious VR, we will start to see simulated realities that will be, well pretty convincing. And I am only talking about our stone-knives-and-bearskins primitive efforts in 2022. Think about how our videogames look in 2022 and consider how they looked in 1974. I would say our efforts to recreate reality are coming along fairly quick, just in audio-visual context alone.
Perhaps you have heard the terms, "presence" and "immersion" in reference to the human experience in VR? "Presence" is believing you are for a few moments at a time, in the VR. "Immersion" is forgetting for a few moments at a time that there is real life apart from your VR experience. Both "Presence" and "Immersion" are going to rapidly improve in this decade. VR is certainly the next step and well, I don't want to repeat myself. I put it like this once if you are interested.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj15vc wrote
Reply to comment by izumi3682 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Why is this comment downvoted? What do you disagree with in this comment? Two downvotes but no replies.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj0wdk wrote
Reply to comment by izumi3682 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Why is this comment downvoted? What am I wrong about?
izumi3682 OP t1_ixj0g33 wrote
Reply to comment by proarnis1 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
I beg to differ. Animals have the emotions of affection, fear, envy and loyalty and probably some others I can't think of offhand. Emotions are derived from biological imperatives. I don't think that they will be difficult to simulate. I put it like this once. What might be difficult to simulate is phenomenology that arises from consciousness. But heck, in 20 years we'll probably lick that problem too.
https://www.reddit.com/user/izumi3682/comments/9786um/but_whats_my_motivation_artificial_general/
izumi3682 OP t1_ixhree2 wrote
Reply to comment by Tinchotesk in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
Not such a short sample. It has been going on like this now for all of recorded human history. Nay, all of Homo Sapiens history. And in the last thousand years things beyond belief have occurred. Especially in the last 100 years alone. I took the time once to put it all together and the conclusions that I drew from it.
BTW what is your estimated time frame for the advent of the "technological singularity"? Either human friendly (we merge our minds with it) or human unfriendly (it stays external from out minds). "It" being computing and computing derived AI.
Consider this. It's not about predicting the future. It is the way the universe (our portion of the multiverse), works.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixhqin3 wrote
Reply to comment by Thatingles in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
No, what I said was that it doesn't make a difference if we are in a base reality or a simulation. I just said that we are going to create our own universes with our minds. And we are going to do that in less than 300 years. But the fact that we are making a simulation of our reality sort of makes me think that our reality, which is reality to us, might be a simulation itself. I'm not alone in this way of thinking.
I put it like this. Suppose that a civilization comparable to ours, arose a million years before ours. And that they are, for arguments sake, 300 years ahead of us in technological capability. That alien civilization could do some pretty fantastic things I would imagine. One of which could be abandoning outer space for inner space, where it would be much easier to get around, not being bound by the laws of physics, but more accurately by the laws of coding, which makes anything possible in such worlds. I cover this in my essays.
I just believe that we are going to do the same thing and in probably less than 300 years. I put it like this once.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixgtfom wrote
Reply to comment by Thatingles in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
No, I don't think you are right. That is because one fine day we are going to be the "dreaming mad god". I want you to look at this video of unreal engine 5.1 and then extrapolate how that technology will derive even ten years from now. Little less 50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUGqzE6Je5c&t=400s
We are going to be simulating them. And they are going to wonder who or what we are. Shortly thereafter they will start simulating on their own and like the old man says, it's turtles all the way down, but you know what? I think it's turtles all the up too.
izumi3682 OP t1_ixgpt3v wrote
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article. There are a lot of good reasons but the below reason seems to be the most likely.
>Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen.
>Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible.
>This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation.
Here is my point in all of this. It doesn't matter if we are a simulation. We can't do anything about it. But what we can do is make simulations of our own. And we're gonna. I won't repeat myself. I finally got around to getting all of my simulated reality essays together in on place. I don't think I'll bore you.
I think I'll also throw in this sort of tangentially related essay/meditation concerning what consciousness actually is. Hint: It's not inside r heads. Anyway you can have a good laugh at my expense. Still I want to share it. Yes, some of my faith, Roman Catholicism, is in it too.
Oh! I found another one about consciousness too. I forgot all about that one lol.
Hiya miss sammy! I hope you find my essays kinda interesting! :)
izumi3682 OP t1_ix7zwbj wrote
Reply to comment by Thatingles in GPT-4 is Almost Here, And it Looks Better than Anything Else - As GPT-3 remains a lot ambiguous, the new model could be a fraction of the futuristic bigger models that are yet to come. by izumi3682
>Was this headline generated by an AI?
Probably. Along with the article itself. Suppose the AI deliberately used that grammar to look less sophisticated than it is. That is AI being disingenuous...
What's a "tenterhook"? Is that a British thing? In the US we say, "I'm on "pins and needles" to see what GPT-4 can do."
izumi3682 OP t1_ix7y5pa wrote
Reply to GPT-4 is Almost Here, And it Looks Better than Anything Else - As GPT-3 remains a lot ambiguous, the new model could be a fraction of the futuristic bigger models that are yet to come. by izumi3682
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>The possibility of GPT-4 being multimodal—such as accepting audio, text, image, and even video inputs—is anticipated. Moreover, there is an assumption that audio datasets from Open AI’s Whisper will be utilised to create the textual data needed to train GPT4.
And this.
>The major plot twist, however, is whether this entire article was written by GPT-4.
I have the perfect analogy for understanding the difference in performance between GPT-3 and GPT-4. I first read of it when understanding the difference between 4G and 5G.
The difference in performance capabilities between GPT-3 and GPT-4 is the difference between a very fast horse--and a slow jet. By the way, true 5G towers are starting to sprout up all over the US. They are big and disfiguring to neighborhoods.
And I'm pretty sure the next iteration/derivation of GPT style AI technology is more than a paper by this point. You might find the below interesting. Some background of the milieu and some thoughts I put down.
TL;DR: GPT-3 and 4, when it comes out, are but a small facet of what is coming into existence. The ARA, that is computing derived AI, robotics and automation are going to see things, in just the next 1-2 years alone, that are going to beyond belief today. To say nothing of what it will be like by the year 2025. Not only is this not hype, but I'm pretty sure I am greatly underestimating the impact on society of these advances. Further, China (PRC) doesn't openly discuss what they are up to.
izumi3682 OP t1_iwt7yxd wrote
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>...this week the FDA granted the company the first approval needed to bring its meat to consumers.
>The approval is called a No Questions letter and means that after conducting a thorough evaluation the FDA concluded that Upside’s poultry is safe to eat. The letter doesn’t apply to all of the company’s products, only to its cultured chicken for now; additional offerings will have to undergo the same FDA evaluation process.
>“This milestone marks a major step towards a new era in meat production, and I’m thrilled that US consumers will soon have the chance to eat delicious meat that’s grown directly from animal cells,” said Dr. Uma Valeti, Upside’s CEO and founder.
The test is simple. If it tastes good and "feels" right, in my mouth, I'm gonna eat it.
But if airport/movie theater prices are involved, then I buy whatever (farm or lab) is cheapest. I would hope the ultimate goal of lab grown meat is "post-scarcity". Free food for everyone on Earth.
izumi3682 OP t1_iwrrsg7 wrote
Reply to Motional and Lyft will launch a robotaxi service in Los Angeles - The Autonomous Vehicle operator is a joint venture between Hyundai and Aptiv. LA will be its second robotaxi market with Lyft, after launching a service in Las Vegas earlier this year. by izumi3682
Submission statement from OP. Note: This submission statement "locks in" after about 30 minutes, and can no longer be edited. Please refer to my statement they link, which I can continue to edit. I often edit my submission statement, sometimes for the next few days if needs must. There is often required additional grammatical editing and additional added detail.
From the article.
>Motional, the autonomous vehicle joint venture between Hyundai and Aptiv, is bringing its robotaxis to Los Angeles, where they will be available to hail through the Lyft app.
>The service is comprised of Motional’s fleet of Hyundai Ioniq 5 electric vehicles, which will be fully autonomous at the time of launch and not require a human safety driver behind the wheel.
My prediction was that there would be fleets of robo-taxis in the US, not later than 2025. A lot of people don't agree with me, but it is what it is.
izumi3682 OP t1_itp6her wrote
Reply to comment by Evil-Sometimes in This computing breakthrough just transferred the entire internet’s traffic in 1 second by izumi3682
Oh, that is probably less than 5 years away. Have you seen "text to video" AI technology yet?
izumi3682 OP t1_ixkchde wrote
Reply to comment by proarnis1 in How to test if we’re living in a computer simulation by izumi3682
I think there is a small chance that you are right, but a far more vast chance that you are wrong. I don't think anything is going to "cap" any longer. No more AI winters ever again. Further, this is the reason I am fairly confident that a 'human unfriendly' (that is the computing and computing derived AI will be external from the human mind) "technological singularity" is going to occur about the year 2029, give or take two years.