With the growing popularity of AI art generators, there has been a heated discussion regarding whether AI pictures qualify as actual art. But what if there is no such thing as actual art, and the only art generated is by AI?
Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom made the argument in 2003, building on the ancient traditions of Descartes and Plato’s Cave (adapted for modern technology). According to Bostrom’s thesis, in a world with enormous computer power, each observer must regard themselves to be in one of many simulated realities rather than the genuine one.
According to Bostrom, technology capacities to produce complex simulations are expected to develop over time and eventually transcend our own. It’s also possible that when a civilisation reaches that threshold, it’ll generate a slew of simulations, including ‘ancestor simulations’ from previous, less evolved epochs.
It would be very difficult for artificially intelligent creatures living in such a simulation and believing themselves to be human to ever be assured of their own existence. However, statistically, the likelihood is that they live in an intricate fiction and that their reality is nothing more than an illusion.
It is unlikely that you live in the lowest reality
This is because, if it were ever feasible to simulate realities, there would be no reason not to construct alternative settings, even ones similar to our own. Given the large amount of simulations that might be constructed, the possibility of us living in a simulated world becomes rather high, since simulations would outweigh the base reality.
Zhuangzi Dreaming of a Butterfly, Mid-16th Century by Lu Zhi.
If we are living in a well produced simulation, we will never be able to tell the difference for sure. Bostrom reinterprets Zhuangzi’s Daoist conundrum in terms of technological determinism and futurism: “Am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?”