Search results for query: *

Thanks for the link. Well I believe in simplistic simulations like the Roy Game. The player doesn't have the ability to even create a single simulation within it. I mean it would need to be set in the distant future for that to be possible. Generative AI shows it is possible to simulate...

I've made a new level called "The End Times". It has the Four Horses of the Apocalypse - which you can ride. The pale horse is light green like it is in many illustrations. It has an End of the World Party amongst city ruins... There are robots that don't count as breathing flesh that had...

I wonder if this AI music offensive to Christians? It quotes Bible passages though maybe the styles of songs make it sound like they're mocking Christianity? I'm going to release this music on Steam as a free soundtrack that is part of Brutal Bible Bloodbaths. 1980s female power ballad - God...

I'm not sure if anyone would think those literally have a human mind... (though you talked about the "beginnings"). But I think many/most ordinary people would assume these voices from a year ago do: (see also about 11 minutes in) [if you didn't tell them it was AI] it not only is about what...

More AI videos: (at least most of them are because they have the "Sora" watermark) Those animals seemed to be in genuine distress though in reality they are p zombies. But I kind of feel sorry for the animals and empathize with them anyway...

Well lots of people find quests in games very boring too - they call it "grinding". But other aspects of the game can make up for it. There are also rage bait games that can be incredibly frustrating but they are good to show on YouTube. BTW being in the "zone" in a game means to be in the area...

I'm saying the player is the only thing that is conscious. Their consciousness exists outside of the simulation rather than solely being "in" the simulation. If I am in a Roy kind of game and feel the sensations of consciousness then I am the player controlled character. I could go on for a long...

We already have VR which sends vision to your eyes and sound to your ears and you can use your muscles to interact with the world. I think it is reasonable to believe that one day those things could be directly sent/received to your brain. Actually it does. If there is no afterlife and my life...

I think AI is running the simulation. I think it is handling the main character where its vision and hearing and other sensations are sent to the player who would be wearing a helmet in that scenario. The person wearing the helmet is having its outputs sent to the game like how it wants to move...

Apparently 1984 is a satire too. Anyway if I say that my beliefs are much closer to a satirical cartoon than Nick Bostrom then the counter-arguments should be against the Roy game cartoon. My beliefs about God also partly come from a cartoon: https://lifesplayer.com/bible.php It is about a...

Only someone that chose for the character to be random with no restrictions. But I think not many people would do that. Note I think a lot of those people just accepted that they were stuck in that life and weren't really depressed about it. Partly because they believed they'd go to paradise...

Maybe not really what you were talking about - but everyone in the story isn't conscious but the person reading the story has consciousness. If it is a first person story then the reader kind of shares their consciousness with the main character. They could picture what's going on and maybe...

This is where the Roy game comes in. The player's consciousness exists in their brain outside of the video game. They use a helmet so that their consciousness connects to the simulation. The simulation isn't generating a separate consciousness that exists only in the game.

The relevant part of the video goes for less than 2 minutes. If you truly want to understand my beliefs you should watch the video. It shows a possible scenario about why there are simulations - they could be cheap enough so that ordinary people can play them. I already did explain a lot of it...

Then you won't understand my premises and why I reached my conclusion. I guess you'd rather just attack the Nick Bostrom straw man. The Roy game is all about that. Yet you say you "still don’t even know what it is. I prefer to keep it that way". BTW I'm sure I could explain the Roy game to most...

Some more videos: So here the AI is generating the behaviour of the characters. The characters claiming to be truly conscious (which I could make happen in Sora 2) doesn't stop the AI from being able to generate them...

Actually I'm basing it more closely on the Roy game, which you seem to be ignoring. I tried explaining it carefully but you seemed to miss that part - maybe you had your eyes closed at the time. Maybe you just prefer criticizing a straw man that has lower hanging fruit. It depends on how...

If there are simulations in the future simulating the present then it is possible that those having the experience of being in the present could be in a simulation. They can be - I think some bookies do that. If you need a probability I think that's bettter than nothing. And those bookies...

The possibility of future technlogies is the main premise. That involves starting with what's possible now and going forward. You'd only consider it evidence if you think that future technology is possible. A premise is those simulations being possible. You reject that premise so therefore you'd...

It depends on how you'd respond to this: I need to work out premises that you might find reasonable. Otherwise those probabilities were based on my feelings. Similar to how AI researchers came up with probabilities about AI eliminating humans. I've tried explaining it before and you just...