So, you wake up, in the morning.

[ArMaP]

So please ArMaP, explain how is it cooler?

I don't think it's cooler, I should have said: "... with something that sounds cooler to them."

[RUSSO]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Well, let me try to explain it better:

"Nick Bostrom's premise:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future(1). Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). 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."

(1) Thats what I meant by improvement rate, even if we improve at an 0.1% rate each year looking at computational power and The strongest argument for us being in a simulation, probably being in a simulation, is the following: 40 years ago, we had Pong, two rectangles and a dot...That is what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. And soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality.

"Nick Bostrom's conclusion:


Nick Bostrom in 2014
It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

— Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003"

In other words, once we push that button and start to run a simulated world, our chances to be the original one are close to zero:

A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:

(1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;

(2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;

(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

Sources:
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://futurism.com/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-elon-musk-thinks-so

I don't have the slightest idea, I didn't watch the videos, as usual.

Thats to bad because those "lectures" are really good information. But you can read about it too. the sources above have the same info. I just find more convenient to watch the lectures because Nick its a really good teacher.

[ArMaP]

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future(1). Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct.

OK, no problems with that.

One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears.

Might is not a certainty.

Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations.

True, but why would they do it? I don't see any interest in such simulations.

Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct).

Another "not a certainty".

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."

Why "the vast majority"? Why not all? Wouldn't "the vast majority" imply a mix between reality and simulation?

It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.

It's possible to argue many things, but would it be likely? Just because it could be possible it doesn't make it likely.

Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.

Why not?

A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:

Why?

(1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;

(2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;

(3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

I don't see any reason to accept (3).

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity.

True.

If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so.

Why?

If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

Why?

Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.

Basically, what he is saying is the usual "I have this idea and it have to be the truth because I am very smart" kind of thing. Just get a bunch of ifs and maybes and present it as a certainty.

Thats to bad because those "lectures" are really good information. But you can read about it too. the sources above have the same info. I just find more convenient to watch the lectures because Nick its a really good teacher.

I don't like videos because:
1) they force me to spend my time the way the maker wants it;
2) I'm forced to see or listen to way the people in the video present the information, with all the bias they may inject in the way they talk and move while doing it.

I prefer reading.