If the Simulation Hypothesis is Correct We are All AIs

Author’s note: I have no way to authenticate the origin of the following as it arrived by email from an unknown sender three days ago with no explanation. It had the subject line of Simulatio Dubitabam (Latin for Simulation Skeptic) followed by the title of this post you see above. It was quite short and ended suddenly.

I have to believe many others have thought along these lines, but if we are simulated beings living in a simulated universe, we are all AIs. In no sense could we argue that we were not ‘artificial’ as simulated beings would by definition be considered such, just as the being(s) that created them would by default be considered ‘natural.’ And certainly we believe we have intelligence as we have defined that term based on our own actual and perceived abilities. Given this (to me at least) obvious fact I wonder what our own drive to create so called artificial intelligence says about us? Is it the creator/created complex at work, with the created beings looking to “prove themselves” to their previously deified creators? or is it the coming to fruition of a long term plan of the Simulator(s) that was seeded into our own source code at the time of Run Program.

Obviously there is a bit of stretch b….

End Program.

Since I am nowhere near Vocal's absurd and ridiculous 600 word count minimum I present to you a free bonus story which has very little to do with the simulation hypothesis, but which does link a simulation hypothesis related article, and also happens to be shorter than 600 words and thus unpublishable according to Vocal. Together the two stories shall reach the 600 word count minimum. By this I swear. lol!

How To Spot a Made Up Chart

First Look For The Biggest Tell Of Them All “Experts Predict”

And here I thought I was the king of the made up chart. After my master class in fake charting in the blockbuster post; Thinking About Constraints On Partially Simulated Universe Scenarios, I just assumed the other pretenders to the fake chart throne would pack it in and go home. Apparently we have a young upstart out there who things he can go toe to toe with diamond d in the world of fake chartery, and guess what people, I gotta hand it to the kid, he’s the real deal. Clearly he knows his way around the absolute basics of Microsoft excel, including the use of error bars. Damn! It took me years to figure out that adding error bars to any chart consisting of totally made up data based on wild ass guesses would lend it a certain level of gravitas that you can’t get from just using a square for the data points instead of the default diamond. Have a look at this beauty.

What exactly is the source of the “data” for this “chart” you ask? No doubt rigorous double blind case control studies were conducted in leading research laboratories around the world. Then the data was compiled and analyzed by a different set of researchers to prevent bias, finally it was reviewed by yet a third group before finally getting published. Or the guy from the website sent out an email and asked a bunch of people what they thought. He then put the numbers in an excel spreadsheet, averaged them, and charted it.

And this is the MIT Technology review, I mean wtf MIT. Yours truly had his first brush with fame when some work he was doing in graduate school was featured in a short blurb in this very magazine. I still keep the copy I have. And wtf computer science, computer scientists, am I going to have to strip you of the right to the word science after computer?. You do not want to end up in the same category as data “science” do you? Not even a science, just a tool of science?