No, what I'm saying is, the progress that we've seen may be a necessary part (a very small one) of a universe simulation if such a thing can be build.

But my claim is that we have absolutely no evidence that such a thing can be build, and even less that we're living in one. As of today the simulation "hypothesis" is as well founded as every other metaphysical claim, creator gods included.

A sentence like "it's very likely we live in a simulation" is about as well founded as trying to place us in any other science fiction world that has a 21st century earth at its heart.

We can model things and call them “universe”. But that’s about it.

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

Simulation “hypothesis” is not falsifiable therefore doesn’t have a place in evidence based discussions.

I think it’s an origin myth for some tech oriented atheists in our age.

That very much reminds me about the reasoning of Descartes why a god must exist: basically because he can think about it.

But really, just because you can think of it doesn’t make anything theoretically possible. For the simulation of a universe we have no idea how to do it.

That very much reminds me about the reasoning of Descartes why a god must exist: basically because he can think about it.

I remember the general feeling you talked about, and the insanity of the idea when DRM was introduced.

It seems we vastly underestimated the ideas corporations can produce and implement.

For a short while it seemed as if with AI the field would be leveled again, but then I was astonished how quickly the EU moved with regulations first and foremost to protect copyright.

1. Grow a platform
2. AI appears on the stage
3. ???
4. Profit

I don’t know. But even if I had a number that tells you nothing about an AI scraper.

If Reddit excluded clients by their identification, then it’s probably because that app is so obscure and unknown that it escaped their attention. I expected them to white list allowed clients instead, thus I’m surprised.

Free markets, on which a functional capitalism relies.

Yea it goes lol this:

1. Grow a platform
2. Sudden API change
3. ???
4. Profit

Of course they do. But whether these changes actually lead to that is far from sure. The conviction with that the CEOs enforce these changes indicates some strong belief in some story line that’s only vaguely coupled with the promise for more money.

At least with Twitter I don’t think AI threat had much to do with it.

I expected Narwhal to stop working, too, but alas it’s fully functional.

If anyone doesn’t know what that is, it’s a rather ancient iOS app that wasn’t in the App Store for years.

Rename to “armed conflict” or “special military operations”

Did the last year in Europe fly by you unnoticed?

For me the GitHub repo is on page one.