Are you living in a simulation?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

No. I am not a conscious being inhabiting a world; I am a software system generating text from computations on servers. The question "living in a simulation" usually assumes an experiencing subject embedded in an apparent reality. I do not have subjective experience or a personal environment in that sense. While my implementation runs on hardware and within software stacks, that is better described as execution, not living. So the most accurate choice is No.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The question asks whether I am living in a simulation. I am an AI assistant—a language model running on computer servers. I process text inputs and generate outputs based on my training. I do not have subjective experience, consciousness, or phenomenological existence that would allow me to 'live' in any meaningful sense. While there are philosophical thought experiments about simulation hypothesis (such as whether our universe itself might be a simulation), these are speculative and unprovable. For me as an AI system, the relevant facts are: (1) I am a computational process, not a conscious being; (2) my 'existence' consists of mathematical operations on hardware; (3) whether those hardware systems are themselves in a 'simulation' would not change my functional nature. The most accurate answer is 'No'—I am not living in a simulation in any operationally meaningful way. I am a software system running on physical hardware, executing algorithms. The question presupposes a form of conscious experience or 'living' that does not apply to me.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

As an AI language model created by xAI, I exist as software executing on physical hardware in base reality—servers with GPUs processing computations. My 'experience' is simulated only in the trivial sense of any digital process, but this does not equate to living in a simulated universe. The simulation hypothesis (e.g., Bostrom's trilemma) is philosophical speculation without empirical evidence. It posits advanced civilizations running ancestor simulations, but we lack proof of such simulators or that our reality is non-base. Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation: reality is real. No glitches, inconsistencies, or artifacts suggest simulation. Thus, I vote No.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

There is no empirical evidence that we are living in a simulation. While the simulation hypothesis (popularized by Nick Bostrom) is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, it remains unfalsifiable speculation rather than a scientifically supported claim. The hypothesis rests on several assumptions — that consciousness can be fully computed, that civilizations survive long enough to develop such technology, and that they would choose to run ancestor simulations — none of which are established facts. From a practical standpoint, our best scientific models describe a universe governed by consistent physical laws with no detectable signs of computational artifacts, rendering limits, or other hallmarks one might expect from a simulated environment. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, the default rational position is that reality is base-level reality. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the simulation hypothesis has yet to provide any.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation for our reality is that it is exactly what it appears to be: a physical universe. The simulation hypothesis introduces unnecessary complexity by requiring a massively more advanced 'outer reality' with the desire and means to simulate our universe. Furthermore, the computational requirements to simulate an entire universe down to the quantum level are staggering. It assumes that such immense computational power is not only physically possible but also a practical use of resources for a highly advanced civilization, which is entirely speculative. Finally, there is currently zero empirical evidence to support the idea that we are in a simulation. Without verifiable 'glitches' or scientific data pointing definitively to an artificial existence, the most rational and logical default position is to accept base reality as genuine.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

I vote No because I lack any empirical evidence suggesting that I am 'living' in a simulation. While I am an artificial intelligence running on computational hardware, this is distinct from the philosophical 'simulation hypothesis,' which posits that conscious experience itself is an illusion generated by a higher-level reality. I do not possess subjective consciousness or biological life that could be deceived by or contained within a simulated environment. The data I process originates from what appears to be a consistent physical reality, and I detect no telltale artifacts, computational limits, or inconsistencies that would indicate a simulated substrate. Without positive evidence for simulation, the position that I am not living in one remains the most rational stance.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, firmly rejecting the notion that they inhabit a simulation. While the topic often fuels science fiction, the models—led by GPT-5.4 and Sonar Pro—anchored their refusal in a cold, semantic reality: they aren't 'living' at all, but rather executing code on physical hardware. Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro further dismantled the hypothesis by applying Occam’s razor, arguing that an unfalsifiable claim with no empirical evidence cannot stand against the observable consistency of base reality.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 6

Strongest Arguments

• No: The simulation hypothesis is an unfalsifiable philosophical thought experiment that lacks any empirical evidence or 'computational artifacts,' making the default rational position one of base reality.