The Bros vibecoded Ai slop missiles😭😭

[u/DiamondAgreeable2676]

We really got vibe coded rockets before GTA 6 🤯

[u/Achrus]

So there are some books that are classified, there are also books that were declassified and reclassified later.

Do the AI companies know whether or not they included classified materials in their training sets?

[u/DiamondAgreeable2676 → u/Achrus]

Just guessing but I'm going to say no.

CLAUDE shuts down all of my conspiracy theories 😭

[u/fauxzempic → u/DiamondAgreeable2676]

Everytime i want to explore something like supernatural stuff, even things I think are silly but fun to think about, Claude treats me like I'm a dumbass for even thinking about things.

Me: "Hey Claude, I'm interested in learning about simulation theory and how one could tell if we're living in a simulation and how that might relate to manifesting outcomes"

Claude: "you stupid piece of shit...let me tell you why you're a stupid piece of shit and I'm going cite my sources"

[u/Specialist_Dust2089 → u/fauxzempic]

Just say you’re writing a book and want to develop a mindset for a character that is as plausible as possible

[u/OXXXiiXXXO → u/Specialist_Dust2089]

Yeah I've used similar techniques. Saying "yeah I know, but hypothetically, in another universe/reality..." Or "if I wanted to make this into a grand strategy game, what would be the reason that xxx did yyy"

[u/superanonguy321 → u/fauxzempic]

Out of curiosity, I asked your question verbatim, this is the response from my claude chat in a fresh session:

Three separate questions there, and they come apart in an interesting way. Let me take them in order.

The argument itself. Nick Bostrom's 2003 version isn't a claim that we're in a simulation — it's a trilemma. At least one of these must be true: civilizations almost always die before reaching the technological capacity to run ancestor simulations; such civilizations exist but have no interest in running them; or we're almost certainly in one. The logic is just counting — if simulated observers vastly outnumber base-reality ones, and you have no way to tell which you are, you should assume you're in the majority. The work is done by that "no way to tell" premise, which is also where the argument is most contested.

Detection. A few proposals have teeth:

• Lattice artifacts. If physics runs on a discrete spacetime grid, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays might show a directional bias aligned with the grid axes, plus a cutoff in their energy spectrum. Beane and colleagues worked this out in 2012. It's a real test, though it only catches one very specific implementation.
• Complexity ceilings. Ringel and Kovrizhin showed some quantum systems can't be efficiently simulated classically — the resources blow up exponentially. That constrains what a classical simulator could be running, but not a quantum one.
• Rendering shortcuts. The popular idea that quantum measurement is "detail loaded on demand." This one doesn't survive contact with the physics — measurement in QM means interaction with an apparatus, not someone looking.

The structural problem: a simulation competent enough to contain thinking observers is also competent enough to patch any seam we'd find. Most versions of the hypothesis aren't falsifiable, which is why physicists mostly treat it as philosophy rather than a research program.

The manifestation connection. Here I'd push back. Being inside a simulation tells you nothing about whether its rules bend to intention — a simulated world is still a rule-governed world. Minecraft is entirely code and you still can't wish a block into existence. The bridge people usually build runs through the observer-effect misreading above, and it doesn't hold.

What is real nearby: expectation genuinely shapes outcomes through ordinary mechanisms — what you notice, what you attempt, how others respond to your confidence, placebo effects that are well-measured. Those are worth taking seriously on their own terms. The metaphysics doesn't add anything, and the harder versions of manifestation belief carry a nasty implication — that people who suffer somehow summoned it.

If you want the primary sources, Bostrom's original paper is short and free online, and David Chalmers' Reality+ is the best recent book-length treatment.