48% of Americans hope AI cures cancer or Alzheimer's — but only 15% trust the companies building it. Is that optimism justified?
A nationwide survey by AI company Anthropic (nearly 52,000 U.S. respondents) found real hope alongside real distrust: 48% of Americans hope AI helps cure diseases like cancer or Alzheimer's, and 36% think it'll help people with disabilities. But only 15% trust the AI companies actually building this tech to make good decisions about how it's developed and used, and 64% still fear AI-driven job losses. It's a strange split — people want the outcome but don't trust who's delivering it. It comes as real progress keeps landing: this month Merck and Moderna reported a "clinically meaningful" mRNA cancer vaccine result, and AI-assisted drug discovery tools are increasingly credited with speeding up how new treatments get found. Separately, Pew Research's latest survey found scientists remain America's most trusted profession, with 77% of people trusting science overall — suggesting the distrust is aimed at tech companies specifically, not science itself.
Poll as Guest Infographics
Similar to hewsay's "48% of Americans hope AI cures cancer or Alzheimer's — but only 15% trust the companies building it. Is that optimism justified?"
Slovenčina Español (Latinoamérica) Ελληνικά Public Anyone can view, post, and comment to this community 0 0 Home Popular News Explore Best of Reddit Best of Reddit in Portuguese Best of Reddit in German Reddit Rules Privacy Policy User Agr...
What cures have doctors found for cancer? Is there a natural cure for cancer that has been found by a medical doctor? Do most doctors want to find the cure for cancer, or are they getting more money by not having a cure? How is cancer treated by a doctor and cured fully? Havin...
The Simulation Hypothesis: are we living inside someone else's computer, and could we ever actually prove it?
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published an argument that sounds like science fiction but is taken seriously by physicists and philosophers alike: if advanced civilizations can eventually run detailed "ancestor simulations" of their own history, and if they'd plausibly run many of them, then statistically almost all minds like ours are more likely to be simulated than "real." He called it a trilemma — either civilizations never reach that technology, they choose never to run such simulations, or we are almost certainly living inside one right now.
The idea exploded into pop culture after Elon Musk endorsed it in 2016, arguing that video games have gone from Pong to photorealistic VR in decades, so the odds we're at the ceiling of that progression rather than somewhere along it are tiny. Some physicists even proposed real tests — looking for a kind of "pixelation" or lattice-like signature in high-energy cosmic ray data, the digital equivalent of noticing the render distance in a video game.
Critics call the whole framework unfalsifiable — a clever thought experiment dressed up as science, since no observation could ever conclusively rule it in or out. So: serious hypothesis about reality, or a very elaborate philosophical trick?
🏆 Leading: It's plausible and deserves to be taken seriously. Bostrom's argument isn't "we're probably in a simulation" as a vibe — it's a statistical claim that follows directly from two fairly modest assumptions: that civilizations can eventually build simulations detailed enough to contain conscious minds, and that at least some of them would choose to run many. If both hold even loosely, the math tips overwhelmingly toward simulated minds outnumbering "base reality" minds by orders of magnitude, the same way there are vastly more copies of a popular video game running on players' consoles than there are original master copies at the studio.Our own trajectory backs this up: we've gone from text-based games to photorealistic, physically simulated worlds in under fifty years, and we're already running detailed physics and climate simulations of the real world. Dismissing the hypothesis outright requires assuming either that conscious simulation is physically impossible forever, or that no advanced civilization would ever bother — both much stronger, harder-to-defend claims than the hypothesis itself. (44%)
🥈 It's unfalsifiable pseudo-philosophy, not real science. A hypothesis earns scientific standing by making a prediction that could, in principle, come out false. The simulation hypothesis fails that test by design: whatever we observe, a sufficiently advanced simulation could produce, which means no experiment could ever disprove it. The proposed "tests," like looking for pixelation patterns in cosmic ray data, don't actually solve this — even a null result just means the simulation (if it exists) is running at a resolution too fine for us to detect, which is an unfalsifiable escape hatch, not a real prediction.That's the same structural problem philosophers have flagged in other untestable metaphysical claims for centuries, going back to Descartes' evil demon and older skeptical scenarios — dressed up this time in the language of computer science instead of theology. It's a genuinely fun thought experiment about the limits of knowledge, but calling it a serious scientific hypothesis, rather than modern philosophy wearing a lab coat, oversells what it can actually deliver. (33%)
🥉 Even if it's true, it wouldn't actually change anything. Grant Bostrom the whole argument — suppose we really are inside someone else's simulation. What would you do differently tomorrow morning? You'd still need to eat, still feel pain, still love the people around you, and gravity would still pull you toward the floor exactly as hard as it did before you knew. The hypothesis is metaphysically dramatic but practically inert: it doesn't generate a single testable prediction that changes how physics, medicine, or ethics actually get done day to day.That's not a knock against thinking about it — it's a genuinely interesting way to explore what "reality" even means, alongside older ideas like Descartes' demon or Putnam's brain-in-a-vat. But there's a real difference between an idea being philosophically fascinating and it being actionable. Until the simulation hypothesis produces a prediction that could actually be tested and acted on, treating it as a live practical question — rather than a fascinating thought experiment — is arguably its own kind of overreach. (22%)🌍 🇨🇳 China
Poll as Guest Infographics
Similar to hewsay's "The Simulation Hypothesis: are we living inside someone else's computer, and could we ever actually prove it?"
Are we living in a simulation, I feel like that I'm the only who's really conscious is that true? I think a more intuitive way to get this point (if I’m understanding it correctly) is to flip it and re-phrase it that “the fraction of all people with our kind of experiences tha...
Do you think that with Thomas Campbell's new experiments, he can somehow prove the simulation hypothesis? In the real world (or the simulation that we think is the real world) we don’t know what it should be. The assumption of the hypothesis is that what WE experience could be...