In classic blockbuster film'The Matrix', humans are enslaved by AI because it wants our body heat to power its computers. While this sounds straight from the annuls of sci-fi, a physics professor says we may be living in a Matrix-style simulation. Melvin Vopson, an associate professor in physics at the University of Portsmouth, thinks a series of daily clues suggest this world is not what it seems. Now, he has tackled the hypothetical and philosophical question: If we are living in a virtual simulation, what is the purpose of it? Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, he outlines three theories, including that we all chose at birth to become characters in an advanced AI world.

Tristan is a futurist covering human-centric artificial intelligence advances, quantum computing, STEM, physics, and space stuff. Pronouns: (show all) Tristan is a futurist covering human-centric artificial intelligence advances, quantum computing, STEM, physics, and space stuff. Our universe is a ridiculous place. It's where all the silliest things we're aware of happen. And chief among the silliness is the wacky idea of time.

It is not often that a comedian gives an astrophysicist goose bumps when discussing the laws of physics. But comic Chuck Nice managed to do just that in a recent episode of the podcast StarTalk. The show's host Neil deGrasse Tyson had just explained the simulation argument--the idea that we could be virtual beings living in a computer simulation. If so, the simulation would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time--much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player. "Maybe that's why we can't travel faster than the speed of light, because if we could, we'd be able to get to another galaxy," said Nice, the show's co-host, prompting Tyson to gleefully interrupt.

AI Safety researchers attempting to align values of highly capable intelligent systems with those of humanity face a number of challenges including personal value extraction, multi-agent value merger and finally in-silico encoding. State-of-the-art research in value alignment shows difficulties in every stage in this process, but merger of incompatible preferences is a particularly difficult challenge to overcome. In this paper we assume that the value extraction problem will be solved and propose a possible way to implement an AI solution which optimally aligns with individual preferences of each user. We conclude by analyzing benefits and limitations of the proposed approach. Since the birth of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers worked on creating ever capable machines, but with recent success in multiple subdomains of AI [1–7] safety and security of such systems and predicted future superintelligences [8, 9] has become paramount [10, 11].

Since the birth of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) researchers worked on creating ever capable machines, but with recent success in multiple subdomains of AI [1-7] safety and security of such systems and predicted future superintelligences [8, 9] has become paramount [10, 11]. While many diverse safety mechanisms are being investigated [12, 13], the ultimate goal is to align AI with goals, values and preferences of its users which is likely to include all of humanity. Value alignment problem [14], can be decomposed into three sub-problems, namely: personal value extraction from individual persons, combination of such personal preferences in a way, which is acceptable to all, and finally production of an intelligent system, which implements combined values of humanity. A number of approaches for extracting values [15-17] from people have been investigated, including inverse reinforcement learning [18, 19], brain scanning [20], value learning from literature [21], and understanding of human cognitive limitations [22]. Assessment of potential for success for particular techniques of value extraction is beyond the scope of this paper and we simply assume that one of the current methods, their combination, or some future approach will allow us to accurately learn values of given people. Likewise, we will not directly address how, once learned, such values can be represented/encoded in computer systems for storage and processing.

Recently Elon Musk made internet headlines by claiming that the probability we live in "base reality" is one in billions. Instead, we are much more likely to be living in a historical ancestor simulation created by an advanced future civilization some 10,000 years from now. "The strongest argument for us being in a simulation, probably being in a simulation is the following: 40 years ago, we had pong, two rectangles and a dot," the SpaceX and Tesla founder said. "That is what games were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it's getting better every year. And soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality, if you assume any rate of improvement at all, the games will become indistinguishable from reality." It is probably not Musk's most original idea.

By all accounts, Elon Musk may be one of the smartest people alive. But he surprised more than a few people this week at the 2016 Code Convention in California when he stated his belief that we are not really real, but rather computer generated entities living inside a more advanced civilization's video game. Responding to a question from journalist Josh Topolsky, Musk said, "The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were. Now, 40 years later, we have photo realistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. Soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality. "If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now.

By far the best moment of Recode's annual Code Conference was when Elon Musk took the stage and explained that though we think we're flesh-and-blood participants in a physical world, we are almost certainly computer-generated entities living inside a more advanced civilization's video game. The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.

The eccentric tech mogul made plenty of bold claims during Recode's annual Code Conference on Wednesday -- including that we'll put humans on Mars by 2025 -- but this one takes the cake: Musk believes that our very existence is quite possibly an elaborate computer simulation with great graphics. Essentially, he thinks that our technology is evolving at such a rate that the line between virtual and base reality will soon cease to exist. Given our already blurry reality, Musk says, who's to say humanity hasn't already reached that level of tech, and is now running simulations of past civilizations that are indistinguishable from base reality? "There's a one in billions chance that this is base reality," Musk said. The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following.