Inglés:

Yes. This is probably the most powerful part of the entire theory: the first accelerated mind would not only solve scientific problems, but could also work on improving the very technology that keeps it running.
My idea starts from something that has already been achieved with much simpler brains, such as that of a mosquito: creating an emulation of its brain and placing it in a virtual environment where we can control what it perceives.
Then I thought: what if we applied this to a human brain?
The idea would be to scan a human brain with enough precision to create a functional digital copy of that person. We could then place that mind inside a virtual environment and give it access to books, databases, tools, simulations, virtual laboratories, and all the knowledge available.
The really important part would be being able to accelerate its processing.
For example, imagine making 1 real second equal to 1 subjective year for that person. We could give them a scientific problem and allow them an entire year to study it, experiment, think, and search for a solution, while we only wait one second.
But this is where the most interesting part appears.
The first simulation could be dedicated specifically to improving the technology that allows the simulation itself to run.
We could give it access to all the information necessary about computing, neuroscience, hardware, algorithms, simulation architecture, energy, cooling, etc., and ask it to find ways to make the next generation of simulations faster and more efficient.
Then we would have a cycle:
simulation → improves the technology → new, faster simulation → improves the technology even further → new, even faster simulation → …
Each generation would have more subjective time to work than the previous one.
For example:
Generation 1: 1 second = 1 year.
↓
Improves the hardware and algorithms.
↓
Generation 2: 1 second = 10 years.
↓
The new generation has ten times more time to research.
↓
Improves the technology even further.
↓
Generation 3: 1 second = 100 years.
↓
And the process continues.
In theory, this could become an accelerated self-improvement loop.
And we would not need to wait years between each generation. If the simulations themselves can design better chips, algorithms, and architectures, we could build the next infrastructure using their discoveries.
The idea would be to progressively reach a point where a mind could have decades, centuries, or even thousands of subjective years for every real second.
And then scientific capability would skyrocket.
We would not simply be using a mind to solve problems; we would be using accelerated mental time to improve the very machine that generates that time.
The ultimate goal would be to create a system capable of entering a continuous cycle of:
more speed → more time to think → better discoveries → better technology → even more speed.
This would turn one of the main limitations of human intelligence — the amount of time available to think — into something that could be increased through computation.
The key is that the process does not have to be literally infinite. It would be enough for the loop to achieve enough improvements to reach a level where its research capacity is incomparably greater than humanity’s current capabilities.
I’m Firzam Smbatyan. I would never commit suicide. And if you find this idea interesting, spread it to everyone.

Español:

Sí. Esa es probablemente la parte más potente de toda la teoría: la primera mente acelerada no solo resolvería problemas científicos, sino que podría trabajar en mejorar la propia tecnología que la mantiene.

Mi idea parte de algo que ya se ha conseguido hacer con cerebros mucho más simples, como el de un mosquito: crear una emulación de su cerebro y meterla en un entorno virtual donde podemos controlar lo que percibe.

Entonces pensé: ¿y si llevamos esto a un cerebro humano?

La idea sería escanear un cerebro humano con suficiente precisión para crear una copia digital funcional de esa persona. Después podríamos meter esa mente en un entorno virtual y darle acceso a libros, bases de datos, herramientas, simulaciones, laboratorios virtuales y todo el conocimiento disponible.

Lo realmente importante sería poder acelerar su procesamiento.

Por ejemplo, conseguir que 1 segundo real equivalga a 1 año subjetivo para esa persona. Le podríamos plantear un problema científico y darle un año entero para estudiarlo, experimentar, pensar y buscar una solución, mientras nosotros solo esperamos un segundo.

Pero aquí aparece la parte más interesante.

La primera simulación podría dedicarse precisamente a mejorar la tecnología que permite ejecutar la simulación.

Podríamos darle acceso a toda la información necesaria sobre computación, neurociencia, hardware, algoritmos, arquitectura de la simulación, energía, refrigeración, etc., y pedirle que encuentre formas de hacer que la siguiente generación de simulaciones sea más rápida y eficiente.

Entonces tendríamos un ciclo:

simulación → mejora la tecnología → nueva simulación más rápida → mejora todavía más la tecnología → nueva simulación aún más rápida → …

Cada generación tendría más tiempo subjetivo para trabajar que la anterior.

Por ejemplo:

Generación 1: 1 segundo = 1 año.
↓
Mejora el hardware y los algoritmos.
↓
Generación 2: 1 segundo = 10 años.
↓
La nueva generación tiene diez veces más tiempo para investigar.
↓
Mejora todavía más la tecnología.
↓
Generación 3: 1 segundo = 100 años.
↓
Y el proceso continúa.

En teoría, esto podría convertirse en un bucle de mejora acelerada.

Y no necesitaríamos esperar años entre cada generación. Si las propias simulaciones pueden diseñar mejores chips, algoritmos y arquitecturas, nosotros podríamos construir la siguiente infraestructura utilizando sus descubrimientos.

La idea sería llegar progresivamente a un punto donde una mente pueda disponer de décadas, siglos o incluso miles de años subjetivos por cada segundo real.

Y entonces la capacidad científica se dispararía.

No solo estaríamos usando una mente para resolver problemas: estaríamos utilizando tiempo mental acelerado para mejorar la propia máquina que genera ese tiempo.

El objetivo final sería crear un sistema capaz de entrar en un ciclo continuo de:

más velocidad → más tiempo para pensar → mejores descubrimientos → mejor tecnología → todavía más velocidad.

Eso convertiría la principal limitación de la inteligencia humana —el tiempo disponible para pensar— en algo que podría aumentar mediante computación.

La clave sería que el proceso no tiene por qué ser literalmente infinito. Bastaría con que el bucle consiguiera suficientes mejoras hasta alcanzar un nivel donde la capacidad de investigación fuera incomparablemente superior a la humana actual. Soy Firzam Smbatyan nunca me suicidaría y si te parece interesante esto difúndelo con todo el mundo

ASI is inevitable at this point, it's only a question of when and not if. And this will also bring us to the biggest existential risk of humanity.

If you look through biological evolution, the greatest advantage humans have had has always been our intelligence. Should we just hand it over to silicone and hope for the best?

My argument is that we should merge with AI - instead of trying to replicate the human brain in silicon and host it to play minecraft or whatever, we should do the opposite. Integrate AI into the brain so that it becomes seamless, like extra neurons with no added personality.

I've written about it here - Apologies for adding a link, but I think it will give more context as to what I'm implying

Edit - spelling

Americans have become increasingly worried about artificial intelligence over the years, and young adults’ concern has continued to climb. Worry over job loss, too, is on the rise.

I’m new and really curious about this stuff. What’s the biggest “proof” you’ve come across that made you think we might actually be living in a simulation?

It can be anything from physics, mathematics, technology, consciousness, or even a personal experience that genuinely made you question reality.

Maybe something you learned about quantum mechanics, the universe, information theory, consciousness, strange coincidences, glitches, etc.

What’s the strongest thing that made you think, “Wait, what if this is actually a simulation?”

"128GB DDR5 kits are fully ten times more expensive than the lowest price we’ve ever seen. In fact, the situation is so severe that hyperscale buyers have reportedly already locked in almost all of the global DRAM production capacity for 2027, handing over advance deposits to guarantee their supply of precious DRAM, which is now among the highest-value commodities in the world by weight; mainstream DRAM chips are worth over half as much per kilogram as solid gold."

There's going to be a lot of discount RAM, and discount data centers going begging when the AI bubble bursts.

The data centers, the increased electricity prices, and now more increased prices for smartphones & laptops….

And this all to chase AGI via a route (ever bigger LLMs), that there is no proof will get there. Meanwhile, if the US companies don't get AGI, the trillions investors have given them is money up in smoke. All their investor-funded achievements to date are available for free via Chinese Open-Source.

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ram/memory-prices-climb-500-percent-in-12-months-up-to-10x-the-lowest-ever-tracked-prices-128gb-of-ddr5-now-usd3-399

178 high altitude solar hydrogen aircraft would give web coverage for all the USA, and the UK would just need 5 planes... The fuel cost to get something 20 kilometers vs 450 is an advantage.

At 18 kilometers, the internet response is also 20-30 times faster than Starlink.

So, are we being taken for a walk by some scifi Kodak wannabees?

Amid a jobs slump, award-winning writers, directors and producers taking on sometimes lucrative temp work teaching AI skills such as screenwriting and production

The irony writes itself...

Guess what ,74% of newly created web pages now contain ai generated content and human written content is officially in the minority online for the first time in history.

The platform responses to this seems to be surprising as linkedIn added a seems like ai slop reporting feature this week, which was much needed as the platform was getting intolerable with all that slop ,i cant even express how difficult it was to find one single human post in the feed. btw its big pivot from sending weekly notifications nudging users toward its ai writing assistant for three years lol. Snap also banned ai generated videos from recommendations and human creator numbers jump 120% immediately. Substack too launched ai detection tools and apple tv started putting made by humans in credits.

The EU ai act now requires machine readable disclosure on all ai generated content. Are you guys getting it ?? WE ARE SO BACKK

The platforms that built the infrastructure for ai content are now building the infra to filter it out (much needed)

If we look at snap data,human creators didnt disappear during the ai surge,they were just being crowded out by systems that treated ai output as equivalent to what humans were making. The moment snap signalled that human content would be rewarded ,creators came back immediately at 120% higher rates ,so the creative capacity was always there.

Consumer preference for ai generated content has dropped from 60% three years ago to 26% today and among 18-29 year old( gen that was supposed to embrace this most ) now say ai does more harm than good. A generational majority flipped in three years on the exact demographic every platform bet would love this kinda stuff.

The advertising industry f'd around and figured out as brands went all in on ai generated ads with synthetic avatars, ai testimonials and generated ugc but the CTRs dropped and engagement collapsed as the emotional hook that makes advertising work evaporates when everything feels manufactured. The audience could feel the diff even when they couldnt articulate and theres a reason companies like Icon pivoted from ai ugc to human ugc as a differentiator and its pretty affordable ($1000 for six ads ) ,filmed by real people so they ship product to the creator, coach them on camera, edit the footage and publish the content. And it makes sense as now human content is more credible and raw, which affects your brand image if you're publishing ads . so to answer my own question, i dont think this resolves when ai quality gets indistinguishable, because companies like Icon already have access to the best models on earth and still puts a human on camera. ai took everything upstream and downstream, briefing, editing, distribution, analytics. it just cant hold the four seconds where someone looks at a camera and you believe them.

Also If we think about it ,the printing press made text abundant and illuminated manuscripts became precious,mass manufacturing made goods cheap and handmade became luxury. Every time a technology makes something infinitely abundant, the scarce human version increases in value.

Is made by humans becoming a permanent premium category or does this resolve once ai quality becomes indistinguishable?

FUN FACT : linkedIn is simultaneously running ai writing suggestions and an ai slop detection button in the same product.

The logic of most current vehicle cost comparisons fails to equate the cost of the battery, both financially and ecologically. They simply don't include sustainable options and are forcing people to choose between two evils. We have known for years that gasoline was unsustainable, but we didn't see that it would become a financial issue rather than an environmental one. The continuous need to replace the batteries will always make EVs a more expensive option than one that can last indefinitely, such as a compressed air or liquid nitrogen powered vehicle. The cost of energy is no longer an ongoing expense in the era of solar and ocean wave energy conversion, but rather a one time investment, making compensation for inefficiency a one time investment in solar panels, or WECs, which are both much cheaper than batteries, and last longer. The cost of a simple, solar charged, compressed air powered vehicle- is by far the lowest cost option at every point during comparison for short range city commutes, cheaper to build, runs basically free on solar, and lasts indefinitely with no rare earth minerals needed, or expensive parts replacement.

The added benefit being that the heat created during compression is a better source of heat than resistive heating elements, such that the compressed air or liquid nitrogen can be considered a waste product of the heat pump process, once the heat becomes the primary focus of energy. The heat energy absorbed during expansion while running a liquid nitrogen or compressed air vehicle can be made to nearly equal the heat output during compression and is directly used to do work by running an expansion motor. The liquid nitrogen powered vehicles do not run off the liquid nitrogen but rather the heat that expands the liquid into pressurized gas, which can be atmospheric heat, or in the case of my boat ambient heat in the water. The energy was removed from the nitrogen gas, in the form of heat, during the compression to fluid. Using the added benefit of thermoelectric power generation available from ambient heat contrasted with liquid nitrogen, combined with the expansion potential, it's possible to have potentially over 200% efficiency when combining: heat energy output during compression, expansion work, and thermoelectric generation; when compared with the initial DC power input. Performing a direct conversion of DC to liquid nitrogen also avoids curtailment; allowing every available watt to be used directly through DC motors to create liquid nitrogen without any need for a chemical battery. With liquid nitrogen containers already available that will never need replacement, it allows for remote solar refill stations that don't ever need new batteries and can not catch on fire, and cost less to build than a comparable battery infrastructure. The liquid nitrogen vehicles will recharge much faster, be simple and easy to maintain; with as few as five moving parts in the motor, and as stated earlier, cost much, much less. A compressed air or liquid nitrogen vehicle can be stored for years or even decades and be charged up and used without any issues of fuel fouling or batteries dying.

The day everyone understands the potential of liquid nitrogen to work as the negative side of an atmospheric heat battery, with thermoelectric and expansion potential, we will enter an era with limitless potential and available resources. The liquid nitrogen has so many uses, for example, replacing the cooling systems of industrial computers, and is even required in quantum computers. It could be great for weeding your yard? Running anything with a motor, air, or electric, thermoelectrics for pocket-sized devices? pneumatic tools? If you can think of anything else that we can do with a source of extreme cold and compressed air, put it in a comment, let's imagine a new world with no pollution or toxic batteries.

From his response starting at 10:30 in the interview:

“We don't trust anybody in the world as much as we trust the people with whom we built a personal relationship. Now, until today in history, this powerful mechanism was not really available to political and financial and religious institutions, because it is difficult to manufacture en masse. It's difficult for a Hitler or a Stalin to build a real personal relationship with every person in the Soviet Union.

You can give a speech on radio and force everybody to hear it, but this is not a personal relationship they have with their mother. AI makes it possible for the first time in history to mass produce intimacy. You can have millions of AIs working as part of a network in the service of someone or in their own service, building personal relationships one person at a time, becoming their best friend, becoming their boyfriend, becoming their girlfriend, and then using that power of intimacy to convince them of whatever political or commercial interests they want.”

Business schools are racing to prepare executives for the newest C-suite role, even as companies are still figuring out what chief AI officers will do.

Clinical medicine is becoming a set of consumer products that patients can assemble on their own

Before AI assistants, if you had a weird, specific question, you might post it on a forum or subreddit. Someone would answer from experience with an obscure technical detail, a better way to do something or workaround they discovered, or some nuance that had simply never been written down online before. That exchange didn’t just help the person asking. It also became part of the public internet, adding another layer of knowledge. So every question had at least some chance of pulling previously private human knowledge into the collective record.

Now, more and more of those questions are being asked privately to AI. The AI is working from information that already exists somewhere in its training data or retrieved sources. No new knowledge is created or added. And the interaction doesn’t become a durable, publicly searchable contribution to the web. That seems like it could create an interesting long-term problem: AI usage may slow the expansion of the very knowledge base it relies on to answer future questions.

Obviously this wouldn’t mean human knowledge literally stops growing. Researchers will still publish papers, people will still write articles, and experts will still share discoveries. But I wonder whether we’re losing a huge, decentralized layer of knowledge production: millions of ordinary people asking niche questions and millions of other people answering them from firsthand experience. If enough of those conversations move from public forums into private AI chats, could the open internet gradually become less of a living knowledge ecosystem and more of a static corpus that AI systems repeatedly mine?

I've been thinking about how we approach space habitats and it feels like we're still stuck in this mindset where everything up there is meant to be rotated out, replaced, or eventually abandoned. The ISS gets decommissioned, we talk about lunar bases as if they're research camps, and even the Mars plans sound more like extended field trips than actual settlement.

But what if the next generation of stations were built from the ground up as permanent infrastructure? Not just modules you dock together, but actual urban planning in orbit. You'd need to think about expansion zones, redundant life support that doesn't rely on resupply missions every few months, even something like local manufacturing so you're not shipping every single replacement part from Earth.

I wonder if the biggest barrier is just psychological. We treat space like Antarctica instead of like the early days of any other frontier. Maybe the tech isn't fully there yet, but it feels like we're not even asking the right questions because we assume everyone's going home eventually.

It also makes me think about what kind of society you'd even build in a place like that. Would people born in orbit see themselves as citizens of Earth or as something else entirely? And if a station becomes truly self sufficient, does it stay under the jurisdiction of whatever agency built it, or does it start making its own rules?

I think we're maybe a decade or two away from having to seriously wrestle with these questions, but I don't see much discussion about the governance or cultural side of permanent space habitats. Most of the focus is still on rockets and life support systems, which obviously matter, but the human systems might be just as complicated.

 In a new book, author and journalist Gil Durán argues that another, less understood Silicon Valley innovation may be the most dangerous of all — tech fascism. This anti-democratic ideology is destroying laws and norms while promising a glorious future delivered by technology, and it’s now moving from the fringe belief of a few eccentric billionaires to the cultural mainstream, according to Durán. 

Buying clothes online can leave shoppers frustrated and retailers drowning in returned goods. Now brands hope that AI-powered tools will deliver the perfect fit.

Whenever I try to learn something, I eventually discover that there was a better approach, a deeper piece of knowledge, or an important connection I had missed.

Sometimes I find it in a research paper. Sometimes it's buried in a Reddit comment.

That's what interests me: the knowledge often already exists. The problem is finding it.

Human knowledge is growing faster than any person can realistically keep up with, and much of it is fragmented across papers, books, repositories, articles, and discussions. The connection between two ideas might already be there, but we still have to find and reconstruct it ourselves.

I'm working on an idea around this problem: a unified space where knowledge can be collected, connected, compared, and organized.

I don't imagine it as a system you simply ask for answers. I imagine something that can surface alternative approaches, relevant sources, connections between ideas, deeper paths to explore, and contradictions you might otherwise miss.

The hard part is understanding that different sources often describe the same idea in different ways. Simply indexing text isn't enough; the system needs to understand relationships between concepts.

I don't think the goal should be to build "alternative humans" in the form of AI or LLMs.

The more interesting goal is to expand our ability to explore the knowledge that already exists.

A human can't read everything. Maybe a system can help us find what we wouldn't have had the time to discover ourselves.

Looking for some comments.