349
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The development of artificial intelligence (AI) could advance rapidly, possibly becoming an existential threat to humankind. Bostrom, in his book Superintelligence (2014), compares the development of AI to humans being like small children playing with a bomb. He also considers it “the most important thing to happen… since the rise of the human species”. Indeed, there is no reason why human psychology should be projected onto artificial minds, and assume that they would have the same emotional responses that humans developed during the evolutionary process. Expecting human characteristics from an AI could impede our understanding of what it might be like <ref name=”11”> Silverman, A. In conversation: Nick Bostrom. Retrieved from http://2015globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#!advocates/detail/qa-bostrom</ref>. This area of study has received some attention, with Elon Musk investing $10 million dollars to fund research about keeping AI friendly <ref name=”12”> Mack, E. (2015). Bill Gates says you should worry about artificial intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/01/28/bill-gates-also-worries-artificial-intelligence-is-a-threat/#b2a52b93d103</ref>.
==Simulation argument==
The simulation argument is, arguably, the most well-known work of Bostrom. This concept comes from a 2003 paper published in The Philosophical Quarterly <ref name=”13”> Stricherz, V. (2012) Do we live in a computer simulation? UW researchers say idea can be tested. Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/news/2012/12/10/do-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation-uw-researchers-say-idea-can-be-tested/</ref> <ref name=”14”> Bostrom, N. (2003). Are we living in a computer simulation? The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211): 243-155</ref>. Although the full argument requires some probability theory, the basic idea can be grasped without resorting to mathematics <ref name=”6”></ref> <ref name=”15”> Bostrom, N. (2006). Do we live in a computer simulation? New Scientist, 192(2579): 38-39</ref>. It begins with the assumption that the computer power in future civilizations will be so robust that it will be possible to create ancestor simulations. These are detailed simulations of their forebears, replicating reality to the smallest detail, and allowing for minds in the simulation to be conscious. Due to their enormous computer power it is assumed that they will also run many such simulations. According to Bostrom (2003), “then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race”, therefore being likely that we are among the simulated minds instead of the original biological ones. If we do not believe that we are in a computer simulation, then we cannot assume that our descendants will run a great number of simulations of their ancestors <ref name=”14”></ref> <ref name=”15”></ref> <ref name=”16”> Solon, O. (2016). Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it’s more likely than not. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix</ref>.
Another assumption that needs to be made is that of substrate independence, regarding the philosophy of mind. It means that mental states can occur in different classes of physical substrates and not only biological ones. For example, silicon-based processors on a computer could in principle be capable of generating consciousness. It is believed that it is enough for the generation of subjective experiences that the computational processes of a human brain be replicated with fine-grained detail, to the level of individual synapses. Presently, there is no sufficiently powerful hardware or the necessary software to develop conscious minds in computers, but it is expected that if technological progress continues these problems will be overcome <ref name=”14”></ref> <ref name=”16”></ref>.
The simulation argument tries to demonstrate that at least one of three propositions is true. The first one is that almost all civilizations like ours go extinct before reaching technological maturity; the second, almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations; and the third, we're almost certainly living in a computer simulation <ref name=”6”></ref> <ref name=”14”></ref>.
If the first proposition is false than it means that a significant portion of civilizations reach technological maturity. If the second one is false, it would mean that a significant fraction of these civilizations run ancestor simulations. It follows that if one and two are false, then there would be a great number of simulations. In this case, almost all observers with our types of experiences would be living in simulations. The simulation argument does not show that we are living in a simulation. Instead, it states that at least one of the three propositions its true, not telling which one <ref name=”6”></ref> <ref name=”15”></ref>.
==Bibliography==
