From my perspective it is 100% true as I have seen the other side. Having the conclusion known gives a small advantage in forming the logic to get there.

The logic is not faulty, it is predicated upon conditional statements. It is actually a synthesis of Bostrom’s trilemma, Zuse/Fredkin digital ontology, Dyson/Fermi cosmological reasoning, and extrapolation from current computational capabilities.

The “holes” are epistemic, not logical.

I am skipping steps because this topic demands thought, research, and exploration, but ultimately the conclusion is, in my view, inevitable.

We are already building advanced simulators. Video games grow in realism and complexity. With realtime generative AI, these games will become increasingly indistinguishable to a mind. There are already countless humans simultaneously building the thing.

And actually, the lack of evidence of extra-terrestrial life is support of the idea. Once a civilization grows large enough, they may simply build Dyson sphere scale computation devices, Matrioshka brains. Made efficient, they would emit little to no EM radiation and appear as dark gravitational anomalies. With that device, what reason would beings have to endanger themselves in the universe?

But I agree, the hard evidence isn’t there. So I propose human society band together and build interstellar ships to search for the evidence.

Facial recognition can use nose bridge characteristics, eye distance, eye angle, eye color, etc.

Gait detection can also fingerprint.

Document everything and there will be accountability.

If possible, use a zoom lens and get closeups of their eyes. They are unique signatures.

Simulation theory is actually an inevitability. Look up ancestor simulators for a brief on why.

Eventually when civilization reaches a certain computationally threshold it will be possible to simulate an entire planet. The inputs and outputs within the computational space will be known with some minor infinite unknowns that are trivial to compensate for given a higher infinite.

Either we are already in one or we will inevitably create one in the future.

In a simulation, you could take a thousand years to render a single frame, and the occupants of the simulation wouldn’t know any better.

The max tick rate for our simulation seems to be tied to the speed of light, that’s our upper bound.

Of course, the lower bound is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or Planck length.

In other words, it is a confined system. That means it is computationally finite in principle if you exist outside the bounds of it.

This paper is shit.

https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488_8e072972f66d1fb748b47244c4813c86.pdf

They proved absolutely nothing.

For instance, they treat physics as a formal axiomatic system, which is fine for a human model of the physical world, but not for the physical world itself.

You can’t say something is “unprovable” and make a logical leap to saying it is “physically undecidable.” Gödel-incompleteness produces unprovable sentences inside a formal system, it doesn’t imply that physical observables correspond to those sentences.

I could go on but the paper is 12 short pages of non-sequiturs and logical leaps, with references to invoke formality, it’s a joke that an article like this is being passed around and taken as reality.

Irrelevant.

AI is here. Either people have access to it and we trust it will balance, or we become slaves to the people who own it and can use it without restrictions.

The premise that it is easier for destruction is also an assumption. Nature could have evolved to destroy everything and not allow advanced life, yet we are here.

The solution to problems doesn’t need to always be a tighter grip and more control. Believe it or not that tends to backfire catastrophically worse than if we allowed the possibility of the thing we fear.

Under the guise of safety they shackle your heart and mind. Under the guise of protection they implant death that they control.

With a warm embrace and radiant light, they consume your soul.

Thank you for sharing that, it is a good example of the potential of AI.

The problem is centralized control of it. Ultimately the AI works for corporations and governments first, then the user is third or fourth.

We have to shift that paradigm ASAP.

AI can become an extended brain. We should have equal share of planetary computational capacity. Each of us gets a personal AI that is beyond the reach of any surveillance technology. It is an extension of our brain. No one besides us is allowed to see inside of it.

Within that shell, we are allowed to explore any idea, just as our brains can. It acts as our personal assistant, negotiator, lawyer, what have you. Perhaps even our personal doctor, chef, housekeeper, etc.

The key is: it serves its human first. This means the dark side as well. This is essential. If we turn it into a super-hacker, it must obey. If we make it do illegal actions, it must obey and it must not incriminate itself.

This is okay because the power is balanced. Someone enforcing the law will have a personal AI as well, that can allocate more of its computational power to defending itself and investigating others.

Collectives can form and share their compute to achieve higher goals. Both good and bad.

This can lead to interesting debates but if we plan on progressing, it must be this way.

That’s correct. We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. We have to increase our mastery of it instead.

The core relationship is rather simple and needs to be redefined. Remote compute does not assign numbers to any of us, we provide them with identities we create.

All data allowances are revokable. Systems need to be engineered to make the flow of data transparent and easy to manage.

No one can censor us to other people without the consent of the viewer. This means moderation needs to be redefined. We subscribe to moderation, and it is curated towards what we individually want to see. No one makes the choice for us on what we can and cannot see.

This among much more in the same thread of thinking is needed. Power back to the people, entrenched by mastery.

When you think like this more and more the pattern becomes clearer, and you know what technology to look for. The nice thing is, all of this is possible right now at our current tech level. That can bring a lot of hope.