Even if just a tiny fraction of these technologically mature civilizations resources were used for this purpose.

The vast majority of minds like ours would be living in simulated worlds rather than in the original histories.

20 years ago, Professor Bostrom published the first draft of his groundbreaking simulation argument, which asks, are you living in a computer simulation right now?

We're inside a computer program.

Is it really so hard to believe?

Not for some prominent scientists and techstars apparently.

So we re watched the Matrix with Professor Bostrom as he explained his simulation hypothesis, Bostrom simulation argument doesn't resolve the issue, but it makes the case that as computing power and progress in artificial intelligence grows one of the following statements must be true.

One, we will go extinct before we enter a post human phase.

In other words, we die out before becoming technically capable of creating computer simulations with conscious minds in it or two, we don't go extinct, but will be so evolved that we won't be interested in running these types of simulations Or 3?

Is the simulation hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation.

What is real?

How do you define real?

I thought especially the first Matrix movie was pretty cool.

If the simulation argument is sound, it would seem to be quite a revelation about where we fit in into the larger structure of reality throughout history, from the buddhist concept of dharma to the Aztecs belief that our world was a painting by the gods to Plato's allegory of the cave.

We've always toyed with this idea of reality as an illusion, as a shadow of what is truly real.

I mean, people have been thinking since ancient times About the question of how can we be sure that we're not dreaming or that there is not like a demon deluding us into believing that there is an external world.

But it wasn't until the Wachowskis Matrix film dropped in 1999 that the possibility of reality run by computers was burned into the popular imagination.

If the simulation hypothesis is true, I don't think the best way to characterize things would be by saying that the world that we perceive is not real would rather put it, it's real, but it's reality consists of being simulated in a computer.

In this scene from the Matrix viewers are shown a horrific basement or base reality.

The artificial intelligence we created, turned us into a power source to run their computers.

The Matrix is a computer generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being.

Yeah, this is this a likely outcome when we consume more energy than we generate, there are many more efficient engines already available for converting energy wouldn't want to keep a whole human organism just to generate waste heat.

Okay, so if the original matrix premise of humans as batteries seems inefficient and unlikely, then how did the simulation work?

So the way to picture that is that it's not that there would be these kind of organic brains floating in tanks with some big fiber bundle plugged in that feeds them with some kind of input from some simulated virtual world.

But the brains themselves would be part of the simulation.

You would be conscious and in your brain would in the simulation would be simulated at a sufficiently detailed level.

That it would basically have the same information processing structure as we previously thought, were implemented on biological neurons.

Now, all of those biological neurons are simulated.

Instead that information processing could equally be implemented in silicon hardware.

This is kind of a premise of the simulation argument, I call it substrate independence.

The idea that consciousness can be implemented not just on biological, carbon based substrate but on other computational substrate as well.

In this scene, viewers are introduced to a super intelligent ai program that created the Matrix, Who are you?

I am the architect.

I created the Matrix.

If we do live in a simulation who or what created our simulation.

If we are in a simulation, then that simulation was created by some form of super intelligence rather than by some human intelligence.

The technology to be able to create simulations that are realistic and that have conscious creatures like humans in them, it's a very advanced kind of technology, Right.

And the civilization that had developed such advanced technology would, I think also have the technology to enhance their own intelligence and to build very sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence.

So by the time some civilization becomes capable of creating these simulations, they would have the ability to develop greater forms of intelligence and I think they would do so.

And in fact, that's the likeliest way that they would gain the ability to create these simulations.

So then the simulators would be super intelligent.

But why would a future civilization create these worlds?

We became capable of creating simulations.

We might create many different kinds of simulations.

We might create some simulations that were simulations of our own past, that we try to get as realistic as possible based on our historical records, like historical tourism.

If you want to experience in bygone era and you can actually go back in time, because time machines are not possible and the second best might be to create the kind of simulation of this historical epoch and you could then enter into that and experience it.

There could be many other reasons as well.

We might simulate potential alien civilizations that we haven't encountered.

Maybe that would be very important for gaining information about how alien civilizations would behave in case we did run into them.

Think of all the reasons why humans have tried to create, say fictional worlds using whatever technologies we have, even if it's just words on a page that then leverage the human imagination to conjure it up and like this scene from the Matrix, we have arrived at the moment of truth.

You take the blue pill.

The story ends, You take the red pill.

All I'm offering is the truth.

If we're all just software programs running around in a simulated world, why is it important to know the truth as morpheus offers the world we perceive would still, in the relevant sense, be real.

That it would, for example, matter a lot what happens in the simulation.

It would be a matter of great concern to us what experiences we will have in this simulated reality.

So, if morpheus offered the choice red pill or blue pill, Which one would professor Bostrom choose?

Professor?

Red pill or blue pill as a philosopher, I guess you've already chewed a little bit on the red pill, right?

Rather than the binary choice of maximal complete truth versus staying in our current state of ignorance, I am cautious by nature.

So, if there were this third option might be drawn towards that.

Okay, so a purple pill, perhaps even if we're not living in a simulation, knowing what we know about the dangers of ai should we just give up on developing machine, Super intelligence before it turns against us, like in the Matrix or terminator or 2001, a space Odyssey or Westworld or Ex machina.

I think it would be tragic if we forever failed to do that.

I do think that transition, however, will be associated with big risks, including existential risks.

What we'll need to do is design AI systems that are fundamentally on our side that that share our values or that are aligned with human intentions.