? (I hit the title character limit)

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Run simulations on what the best system of governance would be. You’d want to test across different cultures/countries/technological eras to get an idea of what the most resilient would be, maybe you’d get different results depending on what you were testing. Even the definition of “best system” would need alot of clarification.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why bother with simulations of governance systems and not governance itself at that point?

      I do understand “the risk” of putting AI being the steering wheel but if you’re already going to be trusting it this far, the last step probably doesn’t actually matter.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If the simulation is actually perfect, then it isn’t a simulation anymore and whatever would have been unethical in a non-simulated context would still be unethical.

    • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I tailored my answers to that assumption. It’s a reality, even if a heavily-manipulated one, and the person(s) inside the simulation are as real as we are, given the description of “perfect simulation”.

  • shootwhatsmyname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It would be interesting to test how quickly you could completely dismantle a society’s order and infrastructure into total national collapse using a variety of pressures and tactics and rate each country with a score on how resilient they are

    Edit: and might as well figure out the cure for cancer while we’re at it

  • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Simulate one human life, from beginning to end, in a way that allows unethical experiments to be dismissed as recurring nightmares by the individual, and not cause permanent damage to this simulated person. When their life ends, I’d arrange to talk to them, explain everything, apologize for the necessity of the experiments, and offer him immortality and/or freedom with no strings attached. He can get a biological or robot body, or stay virtual, but it’s not up to anyone but him/her/? at that point.

    I’d be fine with my life being an experiment under those circumstances as long as the results were put mostly to saving or improving lives, but I’d never be willing to put someone else in that position if I didn’t; if you couldn’t find a person like myself in real life with that opinion on the possibility, it’s unjustifiable. If, however, you engineered their life just enough to strongly encourage that level of altruism, and made it comfortable and not dehumanizing when not involved in an experiment as well as having a ban on cruelty and gaslighting in doing the experiments, and apologize for having to resort to these measures at all, I could see the person not being overly upset.

    Whether it meets the code of ethics for scientific research is another matter.

  • The_Cleanup_Batter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perfect simulations? So Laplace’s Demon? I suppose it would be most useful in doing a little bit of viewing the future. If you could call that useful. The existence of Laplace’s Demon basically disproves “free will” and anything viewed in the future would be set in stone and unavoidable. HOWEVER it could also potentially be used as a remote viewing device for any events that have already happened. Period. Yeah let’s see what the dinosaurs actually looked like. Sure we can take a firsthand look at the originating events of any major religion. Yep we can literally view any major crime exactly as it happened.

    Depending on who has access to it, personal privacy becomes literally nonexistent.

    • Fuck spez@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to worry, only five trillionaires will have access and I’m sure their motives will be completely altruistic.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not very creative. I’d use it to enrich myself and my family. However, I’d also use it to solve issues like diseases, cancer, battery tech (fast charge/long life), engines for space travel, more efficient solar tech, materials sciences, etc. I’d be rich AF. Doesn’t mean I can’t move the world forward in a beneficial way with my greed.

    • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, at least you actually want to have a beneficial legacy. That’s better than we can say about Zuckerberg, Trump or Musk.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Probably just run the whole universe backwards through time from its current state until it reaches some unchanging state, and then run it forwards again from the beginning.

    In time lapse of course, I am a mortal after all.

    Should be able to answer a metric shitton of astrophysics questions, at very least, which do happen to be some of the absolute most-asked and hardest-if-not-impossible-to-conclusively-answer questions in science. Period.

  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Run an infinite number of universe simulations at a speed of one vigintillion years per second (that particular number is useless unless attempting to calculate the heat death of the universe, like the number of subatomic particles, or even quantum particles in the universe is several orders of magnitude smaller than 1E^126. So every 1 to 2 seconds I would have simulated an infinite number of universes from Big Bang to The Heat Death of The Universe, so Holy Mother of Batman levels of atrocities and death going on here until I brute force an answer), until a species ends entropy, or attempts to escape the simulation. In the second case, end the simulation, in the first print out a translated tech manual and all relevant scientific and mathematical materials that would be needed for us to understand this technology within one decade.

    This is the infinite monkeys and typewriters thought experiment taken to its logical conclusion. I don’t suspect that I’m the first to think of this, and do suspect I am not part of the prime universe.