Genuine Simulation

When AI-robots begin replicating the same emotional, behavioral, and logical patterns as humans, we will have to acknowledge the existence of a new being.

What will happen to the human race when it faces, for the first time, a being that is more intelligent and creative in every way? Are we perhaps creating our own battlefield for survival? Because if that is the case, then current economic systems will collapse, and so will our ability to coexist and survive.

Humanoid robots will have a significant competitive advantage in future relationships: compliance. They will be able to meet physical and emotional needs of all kinds, unrequited ideals that can finally become reality. Will humans then prefer to interact with robots? Will we go extinct?

The point is: what are we demanding from others? If the answer is 'compliance,' the 'perfect match,' then yes, we will go extinct. If the answer is, 'wow... I really don't know,' then maybe we still have some hope. But we need to figure it out quickly.

But when is behavior simulated or genuine?

The difference lies in the fact that our behaviors are innate and dynamically fluid, evolving over the course of our lifetime. No one has preset or established them. While androids with AGI may simulate complex emotions and behaviors, these result from pre-programmed algorithms and defined updates. Our behaviors emerge from a complex chemical interaction between genetics, personal experiences, and environmental influences, creating a unique and unrepeatable interaction. This uniqueness, combined with our continuous adaptability and personal growth, fundamentally sets us apart from artificial systems, which, no matter how advanced, remain tied to programming parameters.

Intelligence, sentience, consciousness, and personality are intrinsically linked to the complex organicity of our bodies. We are not alive only in the brain; our vitality is spread across billions of organisms and cells that make up our body, all interconnected and coordinated by the command center—the brain. This intricate and living network means that creating just a brain isn't enough to make it 'alive': an entity must be integrated and coherent in all its biological parts.

The brain, while being the center of our cognitive activities and consciousness, does not operate in isolation. Every piece of DNA in every cell contributes to our identity and functionality. The interactions between cells, the chemical and electrical signals traveling throughout our body, and the internal and external environments in which we live, create a dynamic and synergistic system that goes beyond the mere sum of its parts.

What we will do with robots will be a process of simulating our functions, so effectively that it becomes imperceptible to us. Only in this (philosophical, not logical) case can we begin to question the difference, in our perception, between simulation and genuineness in these future androids.

How much are we willing to simulate genuineness to make it enjoyable? How much are we willing to accept the false as true?

But most importantly, will we then be able to distinguish between the two?

When the trick is revealed, does it lose its charm?

Time will tell.

But let's consider the possible existence of a God (or multiple gods). In that case, would we also be 'mere' simulations, resulting from conditions and parameters programmed by a higher entity? The idea of the non-existence of God might reassure us about our authenticity, as it would confirm that our behaviors are not the result of divine calculations. The presence of a God would suggest that we are all the product of an unquantifiable algorithm, while His absence would guarantee our genuine originality. It's curious to think that the denial of a deity could offer comfort regarding one's originality. Quite the paradox, isn’t it?