- Oct 28, 2006
- 27,103
- 12,540
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Gee. What a stupid thing for you to say..........................................
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How our possible simulation could work
- Thread starter JohnClay
- Start date
Gee. What a stupid thing for you to say..........................................
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,144
- 1,274
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,144
- 1,274
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
For the longest time this saddened me as well, but I've come to accept the fact that I'm me and you're you. You see forests that I never will. But if we can simply agree to be kind to one another then perhaps we can lessen the sadness a bit. To that end I agree to let you do you. My only hope is that you would agree to do the same.
Yes and no. I'm the sum total of a billion choices that you never had to make, within a backdrop of struggles that you never had to face. Perhaps I have done well to be where I am, and perhaps I haven't, but I'll leave that to God to decide.
So yes, I am the sum total of my choices, but it isn't just the choices that have determined who I am, it's just as much about the life in which I've had to make them. To judge one without lenience for the other is to give little room for mercy. Please don't expect me to be you, or anything like you, because as much as it may sadden you to see it, I'm not you.
That ship came in a long, long time ago.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
I did not deny that increases in realism were certain; I did not deny that such improvements might lead to simulations indistinguishable from reality. I did assert, and continue to assert, that you had provided evidence that this would occur. Simply stating that trends which occurred in the past must continue is not evidence. It is, at best, blind optimism, and at worst foolish self-delusion.
Oh, please. Don't get cute. Your original claim was that we were in a simulation. Your quote from Musk had two major weaknesses: firstly the opinion of a single individual with minimal technical expertise in the subject is of highly questionable value. Secondly, you apparently offered that in support of the fundamental opening assertion of that original claim - that we are in a simulation.
Yes: your thoughts were haphazard, ill thought out and poorly presented. I agree.
Really? You are the one making the claim about unending improvements in AI. The onus is on you to provide evidence to justify that claim. As I have already pointed out you cannot, logically, project current trends into the future without substantiating argument and evidence.
So, what? I expect remarkable things in the next 10, 100 and 1,000 years. It's an expectation. It's an opinion. I think @Hans Blaster seriously underestimates the potential of AI. I think @Warden_of_the_Storm the storm overestimates the reluctance to purchase AI. But that in no way alters the fact that you have not presented anything to support your assertions, which remain therefore, as simple and simplistic opinions.
Upvote
0
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,439
- 235
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
BTW I think my arguments are the best ones that exist for being in a simulation (even if I didn't communicate them very well). If you disagree then please show arguments that are better than mine.
That claim was there all along. All I modified was the title of the thread. Note the quote also says "it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"
The quote saying it's likely I'm in a situation is still there in the OP quote.
I think it is an informed opinion especially the expert talking in the first video.
I earlier said that the first steps are realistic video then realistic generative AI games. Do you think generative AI videos will never get to the point that it would fool people and they'd think it is real? Like I mentioned the only reason why I was fooled by a Bernie Sanders video was because he said "one zero" instead of "ten". Even after I realised that I wasn't able to detect any other flaws.
Is there some kind of actual technical reason why you think generative AI will stop making progress before it gets to the point that it would be indistinguishable from reality? e.g. people who don't think Moore's Law will continue forever point out that there are limits to the size in which circuits can be reduced to because of the limits of the atomic scale.
But progress has been exponential... e.g. on machine costing about $500 there can be 100+ people in view like in this screenshot... for progress to stop the growth curve would have to slow down but there are a lot of developments on the horizon if regular CPUs get to their limits.
So when that expert in the first video is talking about what progress will be made in the future in those generative AI games it is "at best, blind optimism"? Note they'd have access to upcoming systems that we don't know about yet. You might assume that what the public has access to is the cutting edge but there are much more advanced systems that are currently under development.
You said "You then modified your claim to one that, in future, a simulation could be indistinguishable from reality".
That claim was there all along. All I modified was the title of the thread. Note the quote also says "it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"
The quote saying it's likely I'm in a situation is still there in the OP quote.
I didn't say unending, just that simulations that are indistinguishable from reality will one day be possible. Where did I say it would be "unending"? An infinite level AI is not required. The examples I showed (like GPT-4o) are a long way towards what I'm talking about.
What about this video from 3 years ago:
I earlier said that the first steps are realistic video then realistic generative AI games. Do you think generative AI videos will never get to the point that it would fool people and they'd think it is real? Like I mentioned the only reason why I was fooled by a Bernie Sanders video was because he said "one zero" instead of "ten". Even after I realised that I wasn't able to detect any other flaws.
I think your assertion of "It is, at best, blind optimism, and at worst foolish self-delusion" is also a simple and simplistic opinon - though I'm not saying there will be endless progress.
Is there some kind of actual technical reason why you think generative AI will stop making progress before it gets to the point that it would be indistinguishable from reality? e.g. people who don't think Moore's Law will continue forever point out that there are limits to the size in which circuits can be reduced to because of the limits of the atomic scale.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
