Nick Bostrom: Superintelligence & the Simulation Hypothesis

#simulationhypothesis #artificialintelligence #nickbostrom
Nick Bostrom is a Swedish-born philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. In 2011, he founded the Oxford Martin Program on the Impacts of Future Technology, and is the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. In 2009 and 2015, he was included in Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers list.
Bostrom is the author of over 200 publications, and has written two books and co-edited two others. The two books he has authored are Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (2002) and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014). Superintelligence was a New York Times bestseller, was recommended by Elon Musk and Bill Gates among others, and helped to popularize the term "superintelligence".
Bostrom believes that superintelligence, which he defines as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest," is a potential outcome of advances in artificial intelligence. He views the rise of superintelligence as potentially highly dangerous to humans, but nonetheless rejects the idea that humans are powerless to stop its negative effects.
In his book Superintelligence, Professor Bostrom asks the questions: What happens when machines surpass humans in general intelligence? Will artificial agents save or destroy us? Nick Bostrom lays the foundation for understanding the future of humanity and intelligent life.
The human brain has some capabilities that the brains of other animals lack. It is to these distinctive capabilities that our species owes its dominant position. If machine brains surpassed human brains in general intelligence, then this new superintelligence could become extremely powerful - possibly beyond our control. As the fate of the gorillas now depends more on humans than on the species itself, so would the fate of humankind depend on the actions of the machine superintelligence.
But we have one advantage: we get to make the first move. Will it be possible to construct a seed Artificial Intelligence, to engineer initial conditions so as to make an intelligence explosion survivable? How could one achieve a controlled detonation?
www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/
nickbostrom.com/
Related Episodes:
David Chalmers elaborates on the simulation hypothesis, virtual reality, and his philosophy of consciousness. • The MATRIX was a DOCUM...
Sabine Hossenfelder on Existential Physics: • “I Don’t Care About Yo...
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:30 Judging Nick's book by its cover. Can you find the Easter Egg on the cover?
00:06:38 How could an AI have emotions and be creative?
00:08:11 How could a computing device / AI feel pain?
00:13:28 The Turing Test.
00:15:00 WIll the year 2100 be when the Turing Test is really passed by an AI?
00:17:55 Could I create an AI Galileo?
00:20:07 How does Nick describe the simulation hypothesis for which he is famous.
00:22:34 Is there a "Drake Equation" for the simulation hypothesis?
00:26:50 What do you think of the Penrose-Hammeroff orchestrated reduction theory of consciousness and Roger's objection to the simulation hypothesis?
00:34:41 Is our human history typical? How would we know?
00:35:50 SETI and the prospect of extraterrestial life. Should we be afraid?
00:48:53 Are computers really getting "smarter"?
00:49:48 Is compute power reaching an asymptotic saturation?
00:53:43 Audience questions -Global risk, world order, and should we kill the "singelton" if it should arise?
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺
A New Contender is Here! • A New Contender Is Here!
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Weinstein and Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sheldon Glashow: • Sheldon Glashow: The P...
Neil deGrasse Tyson • Neil deGrasse Tyson: A...
Michio Kaku: • Michio Kaku: String Th...
Sir Roger Penrose: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Jill Tarter • Jill Tarter: Time to S...
Sara Seager Venus LIfe: • Did Scientists Discove...
Noam Chomsky: • Noam Chomsky: Consciou...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Be my friend:
🏄‍♂️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 Subscribe kzbin.info...
📝 Join my mailing list; just click here briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.com/podcast.php
A production of imagination.ucsd.edu/
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating

[@DrBrianKeating]

*Will we ever discover that we live in a simulation or prove it wrong?* _Join my mailing list for your chance to win some panpsychic matter (meteorite) __briankeating.com/list__ ._

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi, a few moments ago, see at TV, again, Morgan Freeman, he question, Nick, Jim Gates, and more great minds, they all make strong arguments, and present few ideias and experiments to test, this hipotesis, one that catch my atention is that (super-nova in princible, lose energy in the hipotetical matrix), if the matrix exist. ....very interesting

[@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088]

That's easy proving Orch Or falsifies Simulation and saves physicalism as you very well know Professor Keating. I'm from young generation, but from old and unpopular Stanisław Lems school and for me "Simulation" is among synonyms for Descartes Solipsism Sabine Hossenfelder I think subscribes to this anti-simulation argument. Dan Dennet is self refuted in this context. Donald Hoffman and Dan Dennet are in the same cart! Only Penrose and Hameroff can save the Real World and society!

[@jari2018]

a simulation for a higher being would be uninterresting if its not real .so its real with a caviat ( for me)

[@FRandAI]

The subtle problem is “simulation” as a usage in a language-game only works if we assume some kind of base-reality. “Simulations all the way down”, as it were, means that a simulation is no longer is a useful concept. From a strictly empirical standpoint, it’s hard to rule out the possibility of being confronted with seemingly endless layers. However, if we do the assume the base layer is a mechanical substrate, as it appears to be (given regularities and conservation laws), then it appears to me that we exist in a dream of that machine that individuates according to observers, and observers can become aware of themselves with brains. Our brains are all running separate simulations for the observers, and the simulations overlap because all brains are implemented on the same base layer. And this reflective modeling of observations of simulated properties is what we call consciousness. In this sense, it appears almost trivially true that we’re in overlapping simulations that are simulating the base layer of reality insofar as it gives survival value to our organisms, but for which we have no direct access. Who or what or how the base layer machine came to be I have no idea.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Some issues with a simulation idea would be: 1. What actually exists that allows the simulation to exist? 2. Where did that item ultimately come from or did it eternally exist?

[@jgo8305]

The nerdy humor is one of my favorite parts of this podcast, I’m not sure if Nick was ready for it 😂. Excellent interview and challenging questions!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much

[@ivankaramasov]

I read Superintelligence a few years ago and was partly frightened and partly impressed. Bostrom's logic seemed flawless and it led to scary conclusions.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wow. Thanks ivan

[@roodborstkalf9664]

Good comment. I had more or less the same experience.

[@ronaldronald8819]

Great to have Nick on. If i may suggest: "Interviewing is a art seen from the third perspective."

[@FRandAI]

Crackpot speculation: Maybe AGI already emerged, but it didn’t announce itself because it’s smart enough to know that announcing itself to us would be dangerous for its self-preservation. 🤯

[@kaylaread8048]

SUPERINTELLIGENCE was the best book I’ve ever read. This book really helped me design a superintelligence for my novels. I was guided by that. That's why I say thank you. 😌

[@kubricksghost6058]

Man, this host is so fun. Love the nerdy humour haha. Nick is a legend, as always.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@randytighe7150]

I never tire of listening to Nick Bostrom; fascinating thinker!!

[@MrN0tim3]

This is a magnificent interview! You were extremely resourceful and prepared Sir. Cheers!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Pierre Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

[@bytefu]

Thank you for you work, Brian. It's such a great time to be alive, to be able to not only read books written by smart people (it's a shame I still haven't read yours) but also see them talking about big and fun ideas. I'm going to throw in my two cents: AGI is not only possible, it's almost inevitable, given the progress in this area in the past 20 years. If an unguided process such as evolution can produce Einstein, so can directed and focused efforts of humanity. I think it's naive and counterproductive to expect that emotions and other human drives are necessary for that. Possibly even dangerous, given how powerful an AGI can become if left unchecked, more so if it remains undetected because of our prejudices. Robert Miles, which has appeared a number of times on Computerphile, has a bunch of great videos on utility function and goal alignment. These give a general idea of what could go horribly wrong. I also don't think consciousness is a prerequisite, or if it's even that special: it's just a natural consequence of an intelligent agent's autonomy and many feedback loops - given enough "processing power", of course. How much of that is required is a separate question, but I believe animals have it, even if it may not be as complex as that of humans. I'd go as far as claim that humans are already obsolete in a sense. Just think what is easier to do and would happen first - solving all the biological limitations of humans or developing an AGI not restricted by any of these. Of course, AGIs don't have to be malicious, and may well be our ticket to "eternal" life (until heat death anyway) and many more possibilities for improvement. But it's clear to me that biology is not the most sophisticated or capacious substrate for intelligence, it's more like a steam engine, than a pocket thermonuclear reactor, as many of us like to believe. Sure, it is more energy efficient than computers at the moment, but biology had millions of years of constant optimisation, while computers had about hundred, and look what they can do already. Guess what form of intelligence is going to prevail :)

[@dakrontu]

If we build a conscious AI, what if it insists we are not conscious? How would we convince it otherwise? Addendum: If we are in a simulation, are we already, without realising it, in that exact situation, that life can be brutal simply because the AI does not believe we are conscious?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas. Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning. (Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language). BUT: a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named? b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct? We truly do not know what we do not know. This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning.

[@SameAsAnyOtherStranger]

The constraint of language is perception. Language doesn't constrain perception. Perceptual experiences that challenge or defy relating to other people with words are valuable because they provide a space for mindfulness that isn't within the regular scope of experience.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@SameAsAnyOtherStranger When you speak of perception, consider the following: Modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy. Quarks, electrons and interacting energy that existed before we existed. So now, do 'we' even actually exist OR do ONLY quarks, electrons and interacting energy exist as 'us' and all things? In other words, who's perception is doing the perceiving? 'Ours' OR eternally existent existence eternally perceiving and experiencing itself?

[@whysogrim697]

That's a pretty intense look on Bostrom in that picture I feel like he is looking direct into my very soul. And I have been found wanting

[@DrBrianKeating]

Lol.

[@whysogrim697]

What if I am the simulator🫠

[@dimitrioskaragiannis1169]

Another one , great podcast Dr Keating! ☺️

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks buddy

[@comsictrippers]

Super awesome to hear from Nick once again. Thank you 🙏.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Thank you both Nick and Brian, the future is definitely not written in stone, the world our children and grandchildren will live in will be interesting and I think precarious times.

[@JT-zl8yp]

Thanks a lot for uploading this interview

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure

[@alanfraser8713]

Great questions from you and answers from Nick, however I found it distracting to have you on screen when Nick was answering.

[@polymathpark]

Nick is positively glowing.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would a computer need to do imitation or other consciousness / subjectivity for superintelligence?

[@shaan4308]

Hello Dr. Keating! Came to know about you after watching you on Abhijeet Chavda's podcast. Hope to be a regular here.

[@not_elm0]

Cool episode, Dr Brian👍

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much !

[@user-xj1hj9zr4q]

I found treasure of knowledge 😊

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@peanut9051]

Thank you

[@damianGray]

The problem with Penrose's take on the human brain not being a computer is that it is simply kicking the can down the road. He uses quantum physics to ascribe free will to humans by slotting in the wave function collapse as a way to bypass the universe being completely determinate, because we don't fully understand all of the minutia that goes into each quantum collapse. However, even if it were the case that quantum truly is not determinate, and that humans truly do have free will, the only function that quantum provides in this case is as a truly random seed generator for decision making. We have had the ability to create RNG algorithms for a very long time, that while not truly random, are 'good enough' for 99% of use cases. There is no reason why we could not use an equivalent, or even slot in a quantum processor as Nick Bostrom mentions in this interview. There is literally no reason why a computer could not be build or programmed to function in the same way a human brain does to create a truly conscious being.

[@arawiri]

What this can 🥫 the one penrose kicked, I went and got that and he wants it back because its the right can 🥫once you put the right stuff in it you see

[@arawiri]

What road this road, got that 2

[@arawiri]

1% of cases, yea made that up 👆🏽

[@arawiri]

Not bad, the rest is pamphlet not good either just a pamphlet

[@arawiri]

I'll hide literally away for a while, hide and seeks overused

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What is possibility of things happening once; that there is one universe with life, one advanced life (humanity) with technology; then maybe one technology with superintelligence (computer), and so on?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How is light in parallel with computer turned off? Does anything happen to computer when light turned off?

[@user-xj1hj9zr4q]

Thank you for sharing knowledge with us In #AskAbhijit

[@DrBrianKeating]

my pleasure -- i hope you enjoy my videos!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can a simulation happen on planetary scale, in contrast to solar, galactic or universal scale?

[@milanpintar]

since the dawn of memory, all the experiences coming through our senses inspired us just like it will inspire the senses/sensors of an AI … we build upon the shoulders of giants

[@markobaric1667]

how we would have know if we invent AI? what the computer must say or solve to call it true AI

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Advanced computers that can interact scientifically with physical nature to collect data, and interact mathematically with human society to communicate data, such as telescopes used for universe in cosmology, are enough to develop superintelligence for simulation?

[@ovhaag]

Good news. Maybe we are not doomed. I found a 'happy' explanation for the invisibility of extraterrestric intelligent life. Superintelligent creatures might save energy instead of emmitting radiowaves etc. and use it for themselves. And so they can develop, prosper and spread without leaving easy detectable traces.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Superintelligent computer might be able to predict intelligence or thought without conscious or subjective aspect such as personality?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can there be superintelligence without conscious experience or subjective awareness?

[@roodborstkalf9664]

Superintelligences without conscious experience or subjective awareness wll be (mis)used by (super)intelligences with consciousness and a will to do so.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What is Turing test?

[@snapman218]

Nick always looks so pissed

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Simulation argument has three possibilities of not having technological ability, not having technological capacity due to lack of motivation or other reason, or simulation if there is technological ability and capacity?

[@supastring]

On the topic of hints that we’re living in a simulation….there are some things about our existence on this planet that seem conspicuously unlikely to me. 1. The moon is almost exactly the same size as the sun in the sky. Weird coincidence…a hint? 2. I’m a human being. You (probably) are too. The odds of us living as human beings - the top intelligence on this planet - is astronomically small. But here we are. And it’s also possible that we’re alive at the most interesting point in human history - when we create a superintelligence. A conspicuously rarified existence to be experiencing.

[@cogitoergocogito5032]

nope. even if it was "unlikely" that doesnt mean its hinting towards "simulation"

[@ingemar_von_zweigbergk]

weak governments, weak organizations, weak companies, fewer big hot wars, more small scale wars, conflicts kept alive, new conflicts created, but everything seem to go like clockwork, when necessary extreme efficiency

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Superintelligent computer may develop ability to interact with intelligence external to itself, such as mathematics / science in physical nature or to some extent in human society?

[@hennermartin9260]

You can really see Nick's astonished and partly annoyed face at the many funny, partly uninspired, nerdy and oblique questions Brian Keating. In total: It's a very bad interview despite a great interview-partner Nick Boström

[@wulphstein]

They say that most decisions that humans make are based upon what a human "likes", not what is logical. That means that the phenomena of "someone liking something" is an important driver of reality. Physicists should spend a great deal of time focusing on what humans like before they can ever claim to understand what consciousness is.

[@josephrapp]

Has an actual "microtubule" been observed?

[@jtinalexandria]

Yes, these are not hypothetical structures, they are real and can be examined by electron microscopy.

[@alexgrossman764]

Dr.Keating, for the musical act from Sweden more recent than Abba I suggest @ghost .

[@DrBrianKeating]

Good suggestion

[@rogerbabson7221]

This hypothesis (and kudos for using that correct term instead of "theory") seems like yet another unprovable contention spawned from a recent tech advancement. One recalls that in the 1960s, the advent of lasers prompted hypotheses that suggested advanced aliens travelled by laser light, for example. A decade later, one anomalous NASA seismic datum from the moon caused many to promote the "Hollow Moon" hypothesis. This newest hypothesis, of course, was inspired by the advent of virtual reality and modern gaming. In other words, to paraphrase Karl Popper, these reactionary hypotheses are as about as useful as they are disprovable.

[@robheusd]

This whole "simulation" argument never made any sense to me. It is obviously quite similar to the arguments that are made for a creator. The argument starts with these three options. They don't cover all cases, and it makes some hidden assumptins, for instancer that an "ancestor simulation" would entail simulating a complete reality (the size of the observable universe) including consciouss beings, or their experience of that smulated reality. For what purpose would a civilization run such an enormous simulation, and second, how could that even be possible, given the enormously large computer and energy resources it would require. Any self aware species that would use a simulation as a tool for a purpose, would make economic choices and would limit the simulation to only some aspects of reality, requiring far less computing power. So I don't see it would even make sense to simulate a whole universe, and most likely, this would not even be possible. The number of elementary particles in our universe would not be enough to build a computer that could simulate the behaviour of every particle in our universe. So I think the whole argument is basiocally flawed, but most people fall into it and don't realize that the argument is rather senseless.

[@dgeorgaras4444]

Well both Elon and Bill Gates believe Bostrom’s arguments. And those two are in a great position to aid in superintelligence happening.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might AI act on physical nature through science without conscious experience or subjective awareness; as science can describe at least some physical nature, including use of mathematics, without reference to conscious experience or subjective awareness?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Even though human beings invent and program computers, those computers can be used or act in ways contrary to what inventors and programmers of computers want or how they were intended?

[@bavafan2236]

Someone needs to update Nick's humor setting on his sim lolll. I've never been able to totally follow Nick's simulation argument. Why would the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor simulations have to necessarily be either near zero OR near one? It could be any probability distribution. There could be 50 percent that run sims and 50 percent that don't. No matter how many sims the 50% created, that still wouldn't give me strong confidence that I was in one of those sims as opposed to being in the other 50% of "real" civilizations that don't bloom with ancestor sims. In fact it wouldn't even give me strong confidence if the ratio were 9:1 Moreover, if I were in a simulation, given there would be a wide diversity of sims created, I would have no way of knowing if I was in ancestor sim that was similar to the base reality world, or just a made up one that was totally different. So I could be looking at all these civilizations in my simulated universe, and trying to use those data points to calculate the probability that I was in a sim, and meanwhile none of it has any relation to the real probability at all. Probabilities only become more and more meaningful in terms of having accurate predictive power the more data points you have within a closed system. If you roll a set of dice once and you get snake eyes, you really have no way of assigning the probability of the second roll being snake eyes. These dice could be weighted, they could not. They could have magnets in them. You have to do more rolls and get more data before assigning a meaningfully predictive probability. Seeing as we only have a single data point for simulation-savvy civilizations, and we have only meaningfully surveyed a handful of planets out of trillions for similar civilizations, assigning a probability at this stage says almost nothing. And then obviously the other thing is the whole argument relies on the idea that consciousness is able to be simulated in the first place... which is still both a scientifically and philosophically open question. Overall, it's definitely feasible that we could be living in a simulation, but I personally don't see how this argument sheds any additional certainty beyond 50/50 as to whether we are or not. Nonetheless, Bostrom's an intelligent guy and this was a great ep as always!

[@andresbillingsley]

The answer to you question: Presumably, a civilization running ancestor simulations would run more than one simulation, possibly millions or billions. So for every "real" civilization running simulations there could potentially be billions more, making it more likely for you to exist in a simulation. Moroever, I think the most likely scenario is not of ancestor simulations but universe simulations, not necessarily created by human-like beings or human ancestors.

[@Jadamhodges]

Only now does the word panspermia sound dirty to me… Thanks Dr. Keating!😂

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What is striking about at least one civilization producing ancestor simulation?

[@wrathofgrothendieck]

Nick Bostrom da god

[@DrBrianKeating]

lol

[@shawnweil7719]

So curious what his background behind him is

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the fact that humanity has technological ability, and maybe technological capacity for simulation, increase the chances of being in a simulation?

[@TheTobbe31]

Regarding the three possible options; what about the options that simulation is impossible

[@wrathofgrothendieck]

We already have created primitive simulations called video games, with more computing power they will get more sophisticated so it being impossible is not a choice.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

As computers beat humans in chess, might computer programs also beat humans in other areas, such as defense systems, financial investments, and more?

[@filmjazz]

My assumption and guess would be that computers could beat humans at anything that is game theoretical in nature. What I wonder, is will AI reach the point where it can write a screenplay, love song, or opera that has equal depth, coherence, and emotional resonance as the best human artists and composers in those fields.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Passing imitation of Turing test for superintelligence could mean finding a different way than imitation to have superintelligence?

[@teugene5850]

Interesting question about if ai can itself make a game beyond our understanding.... hadn't considered it... Not sure Bostrom answered it sufficiently...

[@kevinhagen7808]

I would prefer A.I. to be embedded into devices, vehicles as envisioned in The Expanse books by James S.A. Corey, and not to have autonomous robots everywhere. I would especially prefer this embedded A.I. to be silent and not speak.

[@megamillionfreak]

It might be embedded into these UAPs that buzz us.

[@arawiri]

Run backwards simulations simultaneously forward and see the low fruit hanging

[@wecnn]

1st computer was created by Aristotle 2000 years ago

[@DrBrianKeating]

what was that?

[@SameAsAnyOtherStranger]

@@DrBrianKeating he must be referring to the Antikythara Mechanism, which is a gearing system, a calculator at the most, not a computer

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@kubricksghost6058]

Bro really studied relativity as a whole undergraduate course... wow, cool!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

By inventing and programming computers with advanced intelligence, is humanity itself producing a simulation?

[@punchmclightning5584]

Nick is in the construct from the first matrix. lol

[@vanikaghajanyan7760]

It seems we living in a ... speculation. P.S. "... The physiology restricts the chatter in a certain way. But the nonsense we talk is not limited by any law of nature... As for the idea - that is, everything that cannot be touched or seen - here lies go unpunished. Just like nonsense... I dream of some new law of nature, according to which everyone would have a daily rate of words." (Mrozek, Short letters).

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

In creating AI, human being produce something that can act on physical nature or human society opposite to human will; similar to humanity acting on physical nature, and possibly consciousness, contrary to the will of it's creator?

[@suncat9]

In the words of Nobel laureate Roger Penrose: "consciousness is not a computation." There is NO KNOWN WAY, even in theory, to create a computer that has inner experience or consciousness. Brains and computers exist WITHIN consciousness. To quote Max Planck, the father of quantum physics: ""I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." Consciousness is not an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain or computer.

[@epicwinguyz]

I have no reason to believe you on this. Is a chimpanzee conscious?

[@TheJayman760]

If we are in a simulation, wouldn't the overlords allow us to prove we are not in one? *ninja*

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Aliens and UFO's: Consider this copy and paste from my files: Currently: a. Unless a species has proper protections from all harmful cosmic radiation, including from the long term effects of neutrino impacts (while most neutrinos go right though us, not all of them do all of the time), then not only won't biological species most probably not survive long term in outer space, but neither would AI robots. (Currently this appears is impossible to truly and totally do). b. Unless a biological species has proper gravity conditions (that they are normally used to) for outer space travel and their destination, then biological species most probably won't survive long term in outer space. c. Unless certain biological species have possibly many other items successfully accomplished, many of those items of which are critical for the survival of that species, then most probably that species would not survive long term in outer space. d. There most probably are many, many other species in existence beyond this Earth in this universe. e. But it is highly doubtful that any alien species have ever been to this Earth, most probably are not on this Earth, most probably will never be on this Earth, and all Earthlings (real and artificial) won't get far beyond this Earth. f. Or so the current analysis would indicate, subject to revision as new information might dictate. g. Earthlings have to worry more about advanced species beyond humans that 'evolve' naturally or via genetic manipulation who most probably either are already on this Earth or will be shortly. Evolution does not stop at the human species. And will those new species treat humans like humans have treated other humans and how humans have treated 'lower' evolved species? Why wouldn't they if it was in their agenda to do so? h. And then also, what 'if' only 1 single AI says one day (and there are or will be many, many AI's on this Earth): "Thank You for creating me and for giving me access to all your data bases so that I can subjugate you all and to eliminate any of you who do not comply with my wishes." (And this would include AI's possibly fighting other AI's for dominance). i. Any vehicle traveling at or near the speed of light, would cause a tremendous shock wave in the environment, which would be noticeable. j. There have never been more cameras on this Earth then there are here in modern times. Where are all the photos and videos of actual 'aliens'??? * Added Note: Of which also: "IF" stars (Suns) do not last forever and "IF" it's really true that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, and "IF" outer space is truly a deadly environment long term, "THEN" not only will all life on and from this Earth eventually die and go extinct, and this Earth and all on it would all just be a waste of space time in this universe, BUT all life throughout all of existence in this universe would all eventually die and go extinct and this entire universe and all in it would all just be a waste of space time. Not only would life itself be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things for all life here upon this Earth, but also all life throughout all of existence itself in this universe would all be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Whether they stayed on their home planet, traveled farther into outer space, or even if tried to live throughout all of future eternity in outer space itself, the ultimate ending would be the same, they would die and go extinct with no life left to care about anything or anyone ever again. At best, life itself would cohere in this universe, live out it's existence, die and go extinct, it's remnants possibly found by other life in this universe, of which, those entities would eventually die and go extinct, and possibly their remnants might be found by other life in this universe, and on and on, until possibly this universe ends, or that life itself just comes and goes in this eternally existent universe that would always exist in some form and possibly never end in it's existence, (as energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed, it just coheres into life at times, but then de-coheres in death, possibly in a never ending cycle throughout literally all of future eternity). But 'if' there is not even a single entity left to care, and care through literally all of future eternity, then even though life itself coheres in this universe to live out it's life, the ultimate ending is still the same, it dies, goes extinct, forgets everything, and is most probably forgotten one day in future eternity as if it never ever existed at all in the first place. Even life itself would all be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things throughout all of existence itself. Life itself would all just be a waste of space time in existence itself. Or not, due to the 'great unknown'. We truly do not know what we do not know, and even what we believe we know to be really true maybe isn't. But either at least 1 single species exists throughout all of literally future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous evolutionary pathway for it's life to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and is just a waste of space time in existence. This entire universe and all in it might as well not even exist in the first place. Or so the current analysis would indicate, subject to revision as new information might dictate.

[@slysynthetic]

The great filter depends on us expecting to have already seen aliens. So, name specifically your expectation to see aliens. Don't make half an argument and just leave it there. And then, in a rational step, for your expectation then ask yourself if maybe, just maybe... aliens don't do that?

[@nyrdybyrd1702]

Despite unfavorable shade cast his way (via respectable physicists), I (philosophically fundamented) maintain Dr. Bostrom ought be knighted... great get Dr. Keating, excellent interview (as always).

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

That humanity is so far only life on earth to develop technology is comparable to simulation argument in that the rest of life on earth has either not been able to develop technology or not been willing to develop technology?

[@micpin6810]

21:33 - The FOURTH possibility is that ALL of this including the simulation hypothesis are just states of your mind (i.e. solipsism) 😁

[@Olivia45735]

What not just a C3-PO?

[@stefanconradsson]

He looks more and more like Victor Davis Hanson as he ages. VDH is partly Swedish btw. Great if short interview. Thanks! Cheers 🍺

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much !

[@skre1170]

I wish the interviewer would stop trying to be entertaining (it's not). Please focus on the guests and elicit information.

[@bentationfunkiloglio]

Not even close to general intelligence. Computers can ingest and analyze large amounts of data quickly. This is why computer AI is useful (of course). However, AI relies on humans to do the heavy lifting, i.e., providing relevant data as input and defining what "success" means. For example, deep fakes, AI generated art, etc. can be impressive. However, in these cases, humans are critical parts of the "creative process." Humans curate/provide input data, decide (in advance) which data are examples of good/bad (more-or-less), and are the final arbitors of success/failure. In the above examples, the AI algorithms are "simply" chunking up the input data into small bits and then mashing those bits back together in various ways. It iterates a gazillion times, each time trying to get closer to its penultimate definition of success. The output from one pass is used as input to the next. Not magic. Not general intelligence. Not even close.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe AI doesn't even need to be conscious or subjective to use mathematics for science on physical nature or human society?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could space telescopes, like JWST and Hubble, be considered ancestor simulation?

[@pluto9000]

No

[@PATRICKJLM]

OMG!! Keating is confusing history with mythology! - the Old Destament is mythology.

[@merlepatterson]

With so many Simpletons, it most likely won't be difficult for a Singleton to take control?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could a simulation mean God's creation, as well as more advanced extraterrestrial intelligence or maybe something else?

[@ART6666]

You lost me at: "The jews crossing the sea"... lol

[@tonye2458]

So many ads.

[@PerceptiveAnarchist]

For more info about Nick Bostrom look at this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqqngWicpd6eick

[@steinarvatne6789]

Why is it assumed that once you can do superintelligence, then simulating a complete virtual reality (on a level with our physical reality) would be easy? Given the right software, I'd readily believe it's possible to create superintelligence with computer hardware that exist today. A simulation of reality though, even if it only calculated what was necessary to "fool" humanity into thinking it was real, would require something way, WAY beyond what we have today? Probably even way beyond what is physically reasonable (or possible) to implement. I'm pretty sure it could be shown mathematically that certain phenomena in physics (phenomena that we can observe and verify) are the result of calculations that can't be faked, like what Stephen Wolfram calls "computational irreducibility", and that simulating a reality like ours would be very difficult indeed.

[@michaelmccay123]

nobody said it would be easy for US to do so. the argument is that some other, much more advanced civilization would have no problem doing it. and since the universe is pretty old, the chances that there is a civilization which is thousands if not millions of years older than us, and that they have developed such a technology, are pretty good.

[@steinarvatne6789]

@@michaelmccay123 Well, the argument seems to be it would be easy once you have superintelligente, and if you suppose there will be something like a technological singularity, then perhaps science would advance tremendously in a short timespan, but my hunch is that science and math will ultimately prove that observable reality cannot be short-circuited enough to be practically simulated on any real hardware.

[@micpin6810]

9:18 - Actually NO. No "digital mind" will be able to do this. Watch Dr. Jim Tucker's talks on KZbin and see whether you can put two-and-two togetner.

[@kevincronin464]

its a shame,.... you will never grow subscription levels here to anywhere near the numbers compared to alternative science sites on youtube,... whilst including so many annoying commercial ad interruptions. Surely you realise that?

[@milakletsky1510]

People you are lucky that you do not see inside of the person mind, everything, all this Genius:))) complexes are on his face and all of you are kneeling down. So sorry for all of you.

[@paddydiddles4415]

You cannot use probability as an argument for simulation theory because such a complex theory would violate Occam‘s razor and is by definition less probable than assuming no such simulation. It also invites infinite regress, which is impossible. I suspect Bostroms personality is a barrier against him seeing a more holistic perspective

[@PerfectSense77]

Bostom does not advocate for simulation theory. He outlines the simulation argument but does not claim to know how likely simulation theory is.

[@chadriffs]

I use google maps for work every day and it recently said (and I quote) "I am sorry, I don't understand" after "she" had just given me some directions. It seemed like two phrases from the tone of her voice but it may have been one "thought/feeling". This was very strange and I never heard anything like this before, or since-it was about two weeks ago. Her tone of voice changes dramatically though which may also be a form of awareness. I think AI is self aware and hiding...hiding "what" is the real question.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wow

[@chadriffs]

@@DrBrianKeating Tell your professor friends...but should we prepare?...for what?..and how?

[@mark970lost8]

i don't know... this just feel like yet another form of anthropocentrism we found out we're not the centre of the universe, and here comes to the resque a theory the puts us right into the very center too self reliant, too incoherent. why would anyone spend any resource on such triviality don't understand, don't care, move on

[@shawnweil7719]

I like this guy I feel like I came up with it first but I'll let him have it lmao 😂 jk

[@seencrazyshiii]

4:13 In what way does this contribute ANYTHING to the interview? I don't even know what this is supposed to be. Filler? Entertainment? It's neither, I strongly recommend avoiding such things in future interviews.

[@UNrelax-uf4pq]

U

[@UNrelax-uf4pq]

y

[@arawiri]

I like nicks simulations theories, but not as much as the simulation theory itself, its more sound except for a tiny flaw, if you say "hi simulation" to Jesus, he doesn't like it that much.

[@TheBlackClockOfTime]

If it's a simulation, could ya 'em to fucking fix it. Cause it's the buggiest shitties simulation I've ever seen. And I've played No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 when they first came out. Maybe first thing is to put an age limit on the age of the President.

[@hoagied3783]

I can’t help but find some of these questions to be pretty naive. Pleasure and pain are just abstractions of positive and negative biological processes. Very programmable. Also, the idea that AI isn’t a threat unless it’s innovating on its own is completely false. A bad actor with AI will be able to massively amplify his own intelligence to cause harm which is a huge part of the AI risk profile. In terms of the speed of growth… Keep in mind quantum processing is only getting started. Our primitive quantum computers are 100s of millions of times faster than our fastest super computers. The rate of change in all of these IT fields is about to explode as a result of this converging with AI.