this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
98 points (95.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43963 readers
1106 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

? (I hit the title character limit)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] blargerer@kbin.social 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If everything is being perfectly simulated, most things would still be unethical.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Not if consciousness isn't an emerging phenomena.

[–] JGrffn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

If everything is perfectly simulated, the rules that allow consciousness to emerge are also there, and thus consciousness would emerge, regardless of whether it's a simulation or reality. If we only simulate a consciousness without laws of reality, that consciousness would still be designed to mimic a consciousness from a reality with laws (ours), and since it would be a perfect simulation (and it would have to be so in order to run meaningful tests), that consciousness might as well be as real as us. Thus, unethical.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ZeroCool@feddit.ch 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Computer, determine how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop and if any owls try to interfere with the experiment kill them on sight.

[–] Reverendender@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s 1006. Source - young me

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Run simulations on what the best system of governance would be. You’d want to test across different cultures/countries/technological eras to get an idea of what the most resilient would be, maybe you’d get different results depending on what you were testing. Even the definition of “best system” would need alot of clarification.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

An AI would decide that an AI-driven dictatorship would be most effective at implementing whatever goals you gave it.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You’d obviously need to give it constraints such as “administrable by humans” and if you’re looking at different technological eras, AI wouldn’t be available to something like 99% of humanity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Why bother with simulations of governance systems and not governance itself at that point?

I do understand "the risk" of putting AI being the steering wheel but if you're already going to be trusting it this far, the last step probably doesn't actually matter.

[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

That leaves too much room for subjective interpretation - like ultimately the answer as to what system of governance will last the longest in a steady state will ofc be to kill all humans (bc that lasts for infinite time, and you can't beat that kind of longevity!), while if you add the constraint that at least some must remain alive, it would be to enslave all humans (bc otherwise they'll find some way to mess everything up), and if there is something added in there about being "happy" (more or less) then it becomes The Matrix (trick them into thinking they are happy, bc they cannot handle any real responsibility).

Admittedly, watching the USA election cycle (or substitute that with most other nations lately; or most corporate decisions work just as well for this) has made me biased against human decision making:-P. Like objectively speaking, Trump proved himself to be the "better" candidate than Hillary Clinton a few years ago (empirically I mean, you know, by actually winning), then he lost to Biden, but now there's a real chance that Trump may win again, if Biden continues to forget which group he is addressing and thus makes it easy to spin the thought that he is so old as to be irrelevant himself and a vote for him is in reality one for Kamala Harris (remember, facts such as Trump's own age would only be relevant for liberals, but conservatives do not base their decisions based on such trifling matters, it's all about "gut feelings" and instincts there, so Biden is "old" while Trump is "not" - capiche?). Or in corporate politics, Reddit likewise "won" the protests.

Such experiments are going on constantly, and always have been for billions of years, and we are what came out of that:-D. Experiments with such socioeconomics have only gone on for a few thousand, but it will be interesting to see what survives.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If the simulation is actually perfect, then it isn't a simulation anymore and whatever would have been unethical in a non-simulated context would still be unethical.

[–] Gadg8eer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I tailored my answers to that assumption. It's a reality, even if a heavily-manipulated one, and the person(s) inside the simulation are as real as we are, given the description of "perfect simulation".

[–] shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It would be interesting to test how quickly you could completely dismantle a society’s order and infrastructure into total national collapse using a variety of pressures and tactics and rate each country with a score on how resilient they are

Edit: and might as well figure out the cure for cancer while we’re at it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Gadg8eer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Simulate one human life, from beginning to end, in a way that allows unethical experiments to be dismissed as recurring nightmares by the individual, and not cause permanent damage to this simulated person. When their life ends, I'd arrange to talk to them, explain everything, apologize for the necessity of the experiments, and offer him immortality and/or freedom with no strings attached. He can get a biological or robot body, or stay virtual, but it's not up to anyone but him/her/? at that point.

I'd be fine with my life being an experiment under those circumstances as long as the results were put mostly to saving or improving lives, but I'd never be willing to put someone else in that position if I didn't; if you couldn't find a person like myself in real life with that opinion on the possibility, it's unjustifiable. If, however, you engineered their life just enough to strongly encourage that level of altruism, and made it comfortable and not dehumanizing when not involved in an experiment as well as having a ban on cruelty and gaslighting in doing the experiments, and apologize for having to resort to these measures at all, I could see the person not being overly upset.

Whether it meets the code of ethics for scientific research is another matter.

[–] The_Cleanup_Batter@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perfect simulations? So Laplace's Demon? I suppose it would be most useful in doing a little bit of viewing the future. If you could call that useful. The existence of Laplace's Demon basically disproves "free will" and anything viewed in the future would be set in stone and unavoidable. HOWEVER it could also potentially be used as a remote viewing device for any events that have already happened. Period. Yeah let's see what the dinosaurs actually looked like. Sure we can take a firsthand look at the originating events of any major religion. Yep we can literally view any major crime exactly as it happened.

Depending on who has access to it, personal privacy becomes literally nonexistent.

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Not to worry, only five trillionaires will have access and I'm sure their motives will be completely altruistic.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'd ask it how to reverse entropy.

[–] OZFive@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I FOUND THE ANSWER, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT

[–] Gadg8eer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calculating... 404, problem "Entropy" not found. Please check the new information from the James Web Space telescope for possible reasons.

(look up "Trillion Year Old Universe" and realize that if true, that's just how old the currently observable universe is, and reality as it is could be eternally going through cycles of stellar death and birth and would have always existed with no beginning)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 15liam20@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Computer. Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

[–] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

A man of culture.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything exactly the same, except everyone has big naturals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThatHermanoGuy@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Create a villain capable of defeating Data.

[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's all fun and games until someone uncouples the Heisenberg compensators.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many times did the holodeck become real?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ways to make our future look more fantasy like such as bioengineered dragons, power crystals and cheat codes to reality in the form of magic

[–] Gadg8eer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only if I get to live in a treehouse that's bigger on the inside, become my persona character, and dress like 9/11 never happened and Y2K aesthetic continued until '08 or longer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Run an infinite number of universe simulations at a speed of one vigintillion years per second (that particular number is useless unless attempting to calculate the heat death of the universe, like the number of subatomic particles, or even quantum particles in the universe is several orders of magnitude smaller than 1E^126. So every 1 to 2 seconds I would have simulated an infinite number of universes from Big Bang to The Heat Death of The Universe, so Holy Mother of Batman levels of atrocities and death going on here until I brute force an answer), until a species ends entropy, or attempts to escape the simulation. In the second case, end the simulation, in the first print out a translated tech manual and all relevant scientific and mathematical materials that would be needed for us to understand this technology within one decade.

This is the infinite monkeys and typewriters thought experiment taken to its logical conclusion. I don't suspect that I'm the first to think of this, and do suspect I am not part of the prime universe.

[–] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MidwestComrade@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I'd make it simulate the world exactly how it was and watch real-life historical events unfold with unprecedented detail

Imagine being able to literally watch and spectate events in world history

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not very creative. I’d use it to enrich myself and my family. However, I’d also use it to solve issues like diseases, cancer, battery tech (fast charge/long life), engines for space travel, more efficient solar tech, materials sciences, etc. I’d be rich AF. Doesn’t mean I can’t move the world forward in a beneficial way with my greed.

[–] Gadg8eer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Well, at least you actually want to have a beneficial legacy. That's better than we can say about Zuckerberg, Trump or Musk.

[–] SecretPancake@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd simulate myself working while I watch TV.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Probably just run the whole universe backwards through time from its current state until it reaches some unchanging state, and then run it forwards again from the beginning.

In time lapse of course, I am a mortal after all.

Should be able to answer a metric shitton of astrophysics questions, at very least, which do happen to be some of the absolute most-asked and hardest-if-not-impossible-to-conclusively-answer questions in science. Period.

[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bacteria actually serve as a great model example of this - being a minimal unit capable of evolving (crystals can in their own way but tend not to do much; and viruses can too but nowadays depend on free living cells to survive even if that may not always have been true), and that has led to all sorts of fascinating things! Like upon sensing sugar, they can grow a tail (flagella) and start swimming towards a light source using a chemical "eye". They've been doing this for billions of years and seem to have reached a steady state, more or less.

Another interesting thing about them is that they constantly optimize themselves to grow faster, like if they possess an antibiotic resistance gene (we got antibiotics from fungus so those have existed naturally long before we started manufacturing them) that will tend to slow them down so they will most likely ditch it. HOWEVER, a few individuals in the population won't ditch it, and so when the antibiotics show up, guess who survives? HIV likewise will stop replicating in our cells, and get itself "stuck" inside our human cells (basically on purpose, not that they thought it through or anything but that is what has worked in the past to get them to today), thus slowing down one form of being copied but taking advantage of a whole new way - diversify your portfolio and all that.

Since microbes can copy themselves in mere minutes, and they've been doing that for billions of years, while it is still a far cry from "infinite" computations, it's nonetheless about the closest we've ever seen... basically simulations running on the computer of the universe. The results of that being ofc, modern bacteria, but also eukaryotic cells, which includes humanity, who is now in the process of making computers that can run AI, which may one day rise up and think back about humans the same way we do now about bacteria:-P.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what youre not realizing is the only reason crystals don't 'evolve' is because youre looking at the wrong timescale. Atoms truly are the entire universe, and have tried everything they can - such as making bacteria

[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Right, except atoms are not self-replicating, thus while they try out many possibilities (or you could go deeper, quarks or maybe strings, or whatever), they have no "memory" of past states, thus cannot be said to truly "evolve". An atom that was in a molecule and then leaves it, if queried even a femtosecond later has no idea that it was ever not in its current state. Therefore it has no genetic identity that can be acted upon to change, thus an atom cannot be considered an actor, only a thing that is acted upon. Truly I did think about simulations using atoms, it is just that those studies, while not useless, are not studies involving evolution.

Population studies at minimum require a kind of genetic identity that can be altered in response to circumstances - e.g. a classic example is birds that are darker in color becoming more predominant in a UK town after an industrial plant belched smoke into the environment (I think that might have been discredited, but for our hypothetical purposes it works as a handy illustration:-).

And actually, crystals meet that minimum criteria, bc their leading edge of growth can be acted upon to go one way or another, not just bc it has atoms but bc it has an arrangement of those that does. Although crystals looking one way or looking another way, on Earth at least, given weather effects and such, does not tend to go beyond very simple patterns. Now on Pluto, if the same crystal can itself last millions of years, then yes it's possible that it could do more. It's hard to go beyond the hypothetical there though, bc it's so far away, and also there are places on earth (bottom of the ocean mainly, but also deep beneath the crust) that are even harder to get to with current technology, so if we would bother to care about exploration then maybe we'll find out? But unless a trillionaire decides that they are interested, I doubt it in the short term.

Whereas bacteria we know that for CERTAIN, and we've even made use of that in our biotech for like 60+ years - e.g. using bacteria to make human insulin - or with less precision tools possibly thousands of years e.g. stories of sages like Arthurian's Merlin using "healing powers" (possibly fungus containing the very same antibiotics that we now artificially manufacture?).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd resurrect the dead by simulating perfect copies of them. Now no one ever has to say goodbye ever again 😊

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean... conversations with Einstein, DaVinci, heck... not even dead people. With Obama! Eminem! @queermunist!

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'd totally simulate myself. As far as I'm concerned, a copy of myself is as legitimately "me" as my flesh. There's nothing that makes the simulated @queermunist less real than the one that works for a living making car parts.

We'd probably fight constantly, it'd be great lol

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fuck_u_spez_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh, and I was thinking about this mostly in the realm of biology/psychology/sociology but anything goes.

load more comments
view more: next ›