I don’t understand all that you’re saying, but it seems you’re basing your argument off the incorrect assumption that free will exists.
Comment on An AI startup made a hyperrealistic deepfake of me that’s so good it’s scary
kromem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
A reminder for anyone reading this that you are in a universe that behaves at cosmic scales like it is continuous with singularities and whatnot, and behaves even at small scales like it is continuous, but as soon as it is interacted with switches to behaving like it is discrete.
If the persistent information about those interactions is erased, it goes back to behaving continuous.
If our universe really was continuous even at the smallest scales, it couldn’t be a simulated one if free will exists, as it would take an infinite amount of information to track how you would interact with it and change it.
But by switching to discrete units when interacted with, it means state changes are finite, even if they seem unthinkably complex and detailed to us.
We use a very similar paradigm in massive open worlds like No Man’s Sky where an algorithm procedurally generates a universe with billions of planets that can each be visited, but then converts those to discrete voxels to track how you interact with and change things.
So you are currently reading an article about how the emerging tech being built is creating increasingly realistic digital copies of humans in virtual spaces, while thinking of yourself as being a human inside a universe that behaves in a way that would not be able to be simulated if interacted with but then spontaneously changes to a way that can be simulated when interacted with.
I really think people are going to need to prepare for serious adjustments to the ways in which they understand their place in the universe which are going to become increasingly hard to ignore as the next few years go by.
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
kromem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ah, Lemmy…
“I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re wrong.”
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Lol, I see how you could see it that way. I meant rather that I thought I did understand the part where you claimed free will existed, but not the argument based off that.
kromem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
While Superderminism is a valid solution to both Bell’s paradox and this result, it isn’t a factor in the Frauchiger-Renner paradox so there must be something else going on.
And it would be pretty superfluous for our universe to behave the way it does around interactions and measurements if free will didn’t exist.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Actually free will does exist, unless you define it by some ridiculous standard that I want to fly but I can’t.
You have free will to pursue your survival and best interests, obviously within the limitations of our physical body.JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
It’s actually the people who try to reconcile free will and a deterministic universe who make the ridiculous arguments, such as compatibilism, which basically just redefines free will. If free will were to be true, you have to have the ability to have acted differently.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The universe is not deterministic, but that’s completely irrelevant. The argument of free will does not rely on the lack of determinism of quantum mechanics.
If free will were to be true, you have to have the ability to have acted differently.
And how will you determine the existence or lack thereof, of the ability to act differently?
I’d say we very probably have this ability, since we often reacts differently in similar situations. Ergo by your own standard, your conclusion is wrong.
SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Your comment reads like rambling, unless you’re so much smarter than anybody else. I couldn’t make out many cohesive thoughts, merely guessing here.
First of, our universe doesn’t change the moment we touch something, else any interaction would create a parallel universe, which in itself is fiction and unobservable.
Then you talk about removing persistent information’s. Why would you do that and how would you do that? What is the point of even wanting or trying to do that? An AI robot talking and moving isn’t that different than when we had non AI, case based reasoning. Even the most random noise AI can produce is based of something. It’s a sum of values. We didn’t and don’t generate a computerized random number any differnt.
You can’t proof that our universe is or isn’t simulated, simplified the simulation would only need to stimulate your life in your head, not more. Actually what your eyes see and what your brain is receiving, is already a form of simulation, as it is not exact.
No Man’s Sky is using generic if else switch cases to generate randomness. Else you’d get donut planets for instance or a cat as planet, but you never will in infinite generations. Just because there’s mathematical randomness by adding noise, doesn’t make it change much about it’s constraints. Even current AI is deterministic, but the effort to prove that isn’t realistically approachable. I personality believe even a human brain would be provable deterministic, if you could look into the finest details and reproduce it. But we can’t reverse time, so that’s going to be impossible.
However we can only observe our own current universe. So how would AI change that now? Also our universe is changing even when you yourself interact with nothing.
It would help if your were more precise in what you’re implying. What change of anyone’s perspective? Doesn’t seam to be any different to the past, unless you mean tech illiterate, like people would react on seeing a video/photo of themselves for the first time. It’s not like AI can read your mind and interact with things the same way you would, nor even predict or do the same as you.
AI is just guessing and that’s often good enough, but it can be totally wrong (for now) by doing deterministically things with only one solution. It can summarize text but will fail by simple math calculations, because it’s not calculating but guessing by probability.
kromem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Quantum_eraser_experiment
If/else statements can’t generate randomness. They can alter behavior based on random input, but they cannot generate randomness in and of themselves.
No, it’s stochastic.