How our possible simulation could work

[Hans Blaster]

I have to love the fact that the A.I. remembers that, as the first video says, "dog's have b-holes." How quaint! Just what I need.

There was a movie studio that "remembered" the same thing about "cats"... Memories...

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you think it is possible to one day create a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality?

Not really. No.

Wait a minute!!!! You're profile says Christian, which means that you already believe that reality is a simulation... a created reality... not one born of natural causes. I'll cut you some slack if you're not a YEC, but as for 'embedded agers' such as @AV1611VET, there's no getting around it... it's a simulation, like it or not.

Personally, I think that reality as a man made simulation is much, much more likely than the divinely created simulation that @AV1611VET is trying to sell. I'm not buying into that one at all. @AV1611VET's claims make much more sense as part of the backstory to a video game, than as a divinely created reality. But hey, I find it mildly entertaining, so as long as he isn't hurting anyone, I say let AV do AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally, I think that reality as a man made simulation is much, much more likely than the divinely created simulation that @AV1611VET is trying to sell. I'm not buying into that one at all. @AV1611VET's claims make much more sense as part of the backstory to a video game, than as a divinely created reality. But hey, I find it mildly entertaining, so as long as he isn't hurting anyone, I say let AV do AV.

Do you plan on being an agnostic for the rest of your life?

 

[partinobodycular]

This was demonstrated by AlphaZero in chess.

Not to mention AlphaGo's infamous Move 37.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you plan on being an agnostic for the rest of your life?

So long as I retain my faculties... yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

So long as I retain my faculties... yes.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why the long face? I am what I am. If you or your God are disappointed by that then believe me that that wasn't my intention. You're not my enemy, and hopefully I'm not yours.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It looks like in the future many video games would get their graphics/speech/behaviour from generative AI (e.g. the first video in the OP). Like I said I was fooled by a Bernie Sanders AI video and in the future games like in the first video would be able to replicate those kinds of graphics and speech - and you'd be able to talk to them. So I disagree that it "will always let people tell that it's a video game".
Note the ONLY reason I thought the video of Bernie Sanders was created by AI was because he said "A few hours ago, my office received a letter from a one zero year-old boy named Matteo in Wisconsin".

Yeah that is scary - though many AIs are supposed to be designed to be "safe" and refuse to do certain things.

Except that there is a massive and vehement public and professional backlash against games using generative AI for anything in video games that people will not buy them.

So no, I don't not agree with your assessment at all.

 

[JohnClay]

Except that there is a massive and vehement public and professional backlash against games using generative AI for anything in video games that people will not buy them.

So no, I don't not agree with your assessment at all.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/epic-boss-tim-sweeney-blasts-steam-for-putting-ai-tags-on-games-says-move-is-irresponsible-of-valve

Though the boss of Epic Games says that "Valve should stop requiring developers from disclosing if they used AI in making their game" - i.e. he thinks AI generated games are good. Unreal engine 5 and the Unity game engine are starting to include AI tools for generating game assets.

In the first video in the OP it says that it is currently possible to create a game by just inputing a photo. In the future you could get some photos or videos of people and then turn that into an interactive experience and do what you like to them. Already some people are using nudify apps where the AI can generate nude photos of them. That could be turned into interactive experiences too.

Or you could start with a game you like and then combine it with something else just through talking, etc.

The budget of Grand Theft Auto 6 was about 2 billion but I think in the future you could play something like that but customize it. e.g. set it in 1920s Brisbane then add magic, etc.

So it's about instant gratification rather than having to wait months or years for games to be released.

Already I can use LLMs to generate text based interactive stories but in the future you'd be able to interact with those stories in VR with your speech, etc.

BTW this is related to the beginning of a scenario mentioned in the OP:

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep.

You would, I suppose, start out by fulfilling all your wishes. You could design for yourself what would be the most ectatic life. Love affairs, banquets, dancing girls, wonderful journeys. Gardens, music beyond belief. And then, after a couple of months of this sort of thing at seventy five years a night you’ll be getting a little taste for something different and you would move over to an adventurous dimension where there were certain dangers involved and the thrill of dealing with dangers. And you could rescue princesses from dragons. And go on dangerous journeys. Make wonderful explosions and blow them up. And eventually get into contest with enemies....

Then it talks about why you'd want to experience an ordinary life without knowledge of your godlike capabilities...

 

[Ophiolite]

Except that there is a massive and vehement public and professional backlash against games using generative AI for anything in video games that people will not buy them

I would like to see some supporting evidence for this bold assertion and naturally it should be serious academic research, not anecdotal.

 

[Ophiolite]

@JohnClay You opened with a claim that we were living in a simulation, or that there was a significant possibility that was the case. Your argument, neither via structure, nor content, failed to address that assertion in any meaningful way. You then modified your claim to one that, in future, a simulation could be indistinguishable from reality. I suggest that having to change your primary assertion within days is evidence it was very poorly thought out in the first place. My opinion is that such ill founded threads are inherently discourteous. Independent of your thread, do you share my opinion about ill founded threads?

Now, your revised argument boils down to this: "AI is capable of some neat things at present, some of which can fool some of the people some of the time. AI is bound to get better in future and eventually will be able to produced results indistinguishable from reality. That is merely a speculation. It may be a plausible outcome of the further development of AI, but you have not demonstrated, or provided any evidence to support, the view that it is a necessary outcome.

In short all you have is an opinion. And as such, all I have to do to dispose of it is to note, "I don't think so".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would like to see some supporting evidence for this bold assertion and naturally it should be serious academic research, not anecdotal.

I can't give academic research but news articles are the best I can give.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/26/gamer-protests-ai-slop-backlash/

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/why-so-many-game-developers-dont-want-to-use-generative-ai/

Nvidia faces backlash over 'breakthrough' AI graphics feature

Nvidia says the tool will transform game graphics - critics warn it could squeeze out artistic expression.

www.bbc.com

A real issue: video game developers are being accused of using AI – even when they aren’t

Generative AI is causing new and unusual problems for developers as players become more sensitive to the use of artificially generated ‘slop’ images

www.theguardian.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Though the boss of Epic Games says that "Valve should stop requiring developers from disclosing if they used AI in making their game" - i.e. he thinks AI generated games are good. Unreal engine 5 and the Unity game engine are starting to include AI tools for generating game assets.

I do not care Tim Sweeney of Epic Games thinks, especially when it's about an asset he owns.

In the first video in the OP it says that it is currently possible to create a game by just inputing a photo. In the future you could get some photos or videos of people and then turn that into an interactive experience and do what you like to them. Already some people are using nudify apps where the AI can generate nude photos of them. That could be turned into interactive experiences too.

Or you could start with a game you like and then combine it with something else just through talking, etc.

The budget of Grand Theft Auto 6 was about 2 billion but I think in the future you could play something like that but customize it. e.g. set it in 1920s Brisbane then add magic, etc.

So it's about instant gratification rather than having to wait months or years for games to be released.

Already I can use LLMs to generate text based interactive stories but in the future you'd be able to interact with those stories in VR with your speech, etc.

BTW this is related to the beginning of a scenario mentioned in the OP:

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

Then it talks about why you'd want to experience an ordinary life without knowledge of your godlike capabilities...

That commentary is all over the place that I actually cannot be bothered reading it. You use AI, and you can. I don't want to use AI because I think it's laziness par excellence on the part of a creator and cheapens anything creative and artistic, and any product that willingly and openly says "Made with AI" comes less as a product to be enjoyed and more of just something thrown out as a quick cashgrab.

At this point, you're talking less about simulations and more trying to justify AI usage, especially when it's not actual Artificial Intelligence.

 

[JohnClay]

@JohnClay You opened with a claim that we were living in a simulation, or that there was a significant possibility that was the case. Your argument, neither via structure, nor content, failed to address that assertion in any meaningful way.

I showed that generative AI can generate things that are increasingly more realistic including interactive experiences (Genie 3), videos (Sora 2) and speech/personalities (GPT-4o and Sora 2). That is meant to show that it is plausible that it would continue towards realism in the future.

You then modified your claim to one that, in future, a simulation could be indistinguishable from reality.

No in the OP I quoted Elon Musk right from the start - I didn't add that later -
“...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”
So you made a false claim.
Also that quote has been sitting there on the front page of my website since 2020...

Welcome, Life's Player

The possibility of being in a simulation, video game, or matrix...

web.archive.org

I suggest that having to change your primary assertion within days is evidence it was very poorly thought out in the first place. My opinion is that such ill founded threads are inherently discourteous. Independent of your thread, do you share my opinion about ill founded threads?

I think the title "How our possible simulation could work" is a better summary of what I said in the OP. That is what I wanted to focus on anyway but didn't realise it.

Now, your revised argument boils down to this: "AI is capable of some neat things at present, some of which can fool some of the people some of the time. AI is bound to get better in future and eventually will be able to produced results indistinguishable from reality. That is merely a speculation. It may be a plausible outcome of the further development of AI, but you have not demonstrated, or provided any evidence to support, the view that it is a necessary outcome.

In short all you have is an opinion. And as such, all I have to do to dispose of it is to note, "I don't think so".

Please explain why the capabilities of AI won't continue to become more and more realistic in the future. On the other hand people have said that Moore's Law would stop in the future due to problems with circuits approaching an atomic scale. Do you think Genie 3 is the best that that technology will ever get?
I think that there are forms of generative AI that is currently being developed that would blow away what we currently have access to.
This shows footage of the best generative AI that we had access to 3 years ago:

If you were familiar with the development of generative AI I think you'd believe like I do that it will keep on making large amounts of progress towards realism.
BTW that first video in the OP about Genie 3, etc, mentioned features that they expect will emerge in the coming years so it's not just me who's expecting further developments in the near future - they're experts in the field so they should know what they're talking about.

 

[JohnClay]

I do not care Tim Sweeney of Epic Games thinks, especially when it's about an asset he owns.

His company makes Fortnite which makes about $6 billion in revenue a year which shows he is knowledgeable about what could make money and that would include AI generated games.

That commentary is all over the place that I actually cannot be bothered reading it.

So you couldn't read a couple of paragraphs? I was talking about the wide range of possibilities that generative AI allows and how it is superior in some ways compared to games that don't use any AI.

You use AI, and you can.

Actually I don't want to use it in my Steam game because it could hurt download numbers and reviews.

I don't want to use AI because I think it's laziness par excellence on the part of a creator and cheapens anything creative and artistic, and any product that willingly and openly says "Made with AI" comes less as a product to be enjoyed and more of just something thrown out as a quick cashgrab.

Whether people use AI in the 2020s isn't very relevant to people wanting to simulate an ordinary life in the future...

At this point, you're talking less about simulations and more trying to justify AI usage, especially when it's not actual Artificial Intelligence.

I was talking about generative AI simulations - in the near future - and that is related to generative AI simulations in the future and far future. The whole time I had been focusing on the relation between AI and simulations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

His company makes Fortnite which makes about $6 billion in revenue a year which shows he is knowledgeable about what could make money and that would include AI generated games.

And that number means squat to me since he isn't knowledgeable since Epic Games is known as a one-trick pony with Fortnite alone being the only reason that anyone likes Epic Games.

It's like Musk; big names and money does not mean that anyone should take what they say seriously.

So you couldn't read a couple of paragraphs? I was talking about the wide range of possibilities that generative AI allows and how it is superior in some ways compared to games that don't use any AI.

I was being polite. I didn't want to read what you said.

Actually I don't want to use it in my Steam game because it could hurt download numbers and reviews.

So you're proving my point! People don't want AI in their games!

The cost of AI generated assets is a fraction of the cost of those purely made by humans and also cheaper. At the present moment the quality of AI generated assets is a lot lower but that is changing.

And once again proving my point: AI is seen as nothing but cheap and lazy because it is cheap and lazy and gamers don't want games that come across as cheap and lazy.

I was talking about generative AI simulations - in the near future - and that is related to generative AI simulations in the future and far future. The whole time I had been focusing on the relation between AI and simulations.

And you've done it in such a poor way that it's basically coming across as schilling for generative AI.

At this point Johnny, I'm going to bow out because I've said all I need to say on the matter regarding AI. You've done so much saying of "Look what AI could do! Look what it could be like! This is what it COULD be!" and all I hear is someone so enamoured by the newest shiny tool in the box. You will not be able to change my stance that what is currently touted as AI is lacklustre and lazy and cheap and is not worth the copper in the machinery used to power it.

I'm done.

 

[JohnClay]

At this point Johnny, I'm going to bow out because I've said all I need to say on the matter regarding AI. You've done so much saying of "Look what AI could do! Look what it could be like! This is what it COULD be!" and all I hear is someone so enamoured by the newest shiny tool in the box.

Actually I studied some AI subjects at university in the late 1990s/2000 - my point is that I was interested in AI before it was popular. I thought showing the best generative AI had to offer would be more persuasive.

You will not be able to change my stance that what is currently touted as AI is lacklustre and lazy and cheap and is not worth the copper in the machinery used to power it.

Current generative AI is very primitive compared to what I think would happen in the future - e.g. like stuff in Black Mirror. BTW using calculators is also lazy.

I'm done.

Well I guess we've both made our points.

 

[JohnClay]

And that number means squat to me since he isn't knowledgeable since Epic Games is known as a one-trick pony with Fortnite alone being the only reason that anyone likes Epic Games.

BTW it looks like Epic's early success was from knowing what players wanted in terms of good gameplay.
Somehow in 1991 ZZT was successful enough for Tim Sweeney to create games with higher budgets (he sold about 5000 copies)

Then Unreal from 1998 sold about 1.5 million copies, etc.

 

[JohnClay]

BTW I think it is a good thing that people are pretty critical of my ideas... in December 2005 I was posting some stuff and on that particular messageboard people weren't too critical of my particular "arguments"... (perhaps because they could tell I was mentally ill and irrational)

The matrix - the theory of everything...

As I get closer to this, sabotage seems to keep on happening...
I think I know why...
Because my primary mode of thinking is binary (avoid or don't avoid pain)
And the average of the solution would be the centre of the matrix, and the centre of the matrix = dream/indeterminate/fantasy

I'm already getting very close to it...

Basically it is a 3 x 9 x 3 matrix...

The x is value (truth/false, valuable, worthless)

x=0,y=0,z=0 is indeterminate morality, value, magic.

Note I'm getting confused - I had mixed up x with y... when going from intuitive to logical thinking it reverses...
the y is active/passive (seek/avoid) - it works as a neural network. Intuitive/analogue people think using a neural network.

....

I think the matrix is binary = 3x9x3 spots (keep getting mixed up) = 81
And I think that it is 2^81 combinations =

2417851639229258349412352 combinations of concepts/ideas

After this I'm going to x=2, y=1 (this matrix is noisy I think? or just thinking too much using magic logic), z=1....

That is where the machine logic mind rests. It doesn't feel - except during sexual type connections where it crosses over to x=-2 y=-1 z=-1.

Maybe true knowledge of the machine mind is a bad thing since it leads to coming to a single spot which is static and not magical (it's "real"), has value, has no intuition/emotion

so choose your path... x = morality (avoid pain/indeterminate/seek pleasure) y = value (true/interminate/false) z = magic (real/indeterminate/imaginary)

If you don't choose a path goto indeterminate...

Perhaps some people will say that I'm equally crazy in the OP.