The difference between those thought experiments and the LLMs I'm working with, is the fact that I can test LLMs and myself empirically. I don't feel that I can tell apart human and AI writing with more than 70% confidence. As these models get better, I feel it's going to approach 0%. And especially for writing on topics I am not familiar with. Since the simulation hypothesis arguments aren't directly testable, they don't feel scientific. I personally also have problems with the implication of the existence of conscious greater power. And so it doesn't give me the same existential panic thinking about the future of AI generated content does. I never took the time to read the original paper by Bostrom, thank you for the link.
Edit: I should have used the word disprovable instead of testable.
In a same vein, you can argue then you can't empirically test that every proton in your hand has, say, three quarks or whatever, as you loose your hand. You then might say that all knowledge about protons in your particular hand isn't directly testable and therefore doesn't feel scientific. A lot of things aren't directly testable but can still be scientific (as with simulation argument). BTW, I haven't read the full paper either.
Comments
The difference between those thought experiments and the LLMs I'm working with, is the fact that I can test LLMs and myself empirically. I don't feel that I can tell apart human and AI writing with more than 70% confidence. As these models get better, I feel it's going to approach 0%. And especially for writing on topics I am not familiar with. Since the simulation hypothesis arguments aren't directly testable, they don't feel scientific. I personally also have problems with the implication of the existence of conscious greater power. And so it doesn't give me the same existential panic thinking about the future of AI generated content does. I never took the time to read the original paper by Bostrom, thank you for the link.
Edit: I should have used the word disprovable instead of testable.
In a same vein, you can argue then you can't empirically test that every proton in your hand has, say, three quarks or whatever, as you loose your hand. You then might say that all knowledge about protons in your particular hand isn't directly testable and therefore doesn't feel scientific. A lot of things aren't directly testable but can still be scientific (as with simulation argument). BTW, I haven't read the full paper either.