? (I hit the title character limit)

64 points

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

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Not if consciousness isn’t an emerging phenomena.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s a pre-existing phenomenon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We don’t know that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

It’s 1006. Source - young me

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
1 point

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

You sure you don’t have the scouter on upside down?

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

c\theydidthescience or wtfever the format is

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Mine took around 750 or so. My tongue got so dry at some point it wasn’t doing much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Three

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It wouldn’t be the worst idea to come out of it, to be honest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh yeah no ethical problems there. Let’s just simulate a few billion people times a few thousand conditions and experiment with governmental structures.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

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”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

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

permalink
report
reply
1 point

The fastest way has probably been economical destabilization, as it’s the easiest way to use the feelings of people. Then one could gain status in a country and exploit legal systems to gain dictator status. Would work with some systems, and some are more resistant to arbitrary exploitation now. You could also combine the peoples mistrust with external pressure such as threats of war so that they try to overthrow their own government and fail to create a working system again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Good, and for Canada we could just remove Tim Hortons

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Most effective way to destabilize a nation is to break down its language so that the people can’t unfuck themselves due to being unable to think.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 319K

    Comments