Despite the best intentions of these writers, in the end their simulation critique implies an ethics of the Real. The second problem with accuracy critiques is that they focus on symptom rather than cause. Ostensibly, one could correct the inaccuracy, and then we would have nothing to complain about. That is, the analysis shows us that the simulation is not just coincidently inaccurate, but that in fact the inaccuracies systematically bias the simulation in favor of dominant groups. A private corporation, for example, may use a simulation to bolster its claim that their pollution has minimal environmental impact or low health hazards.
Lets begin with the technical definitions for computing power.
On the one hand, the mathematical theory of computation has precisely defined what we mean by saying that one system is more powerful than another. The least powerful system is a finite state automaton, the next level in power is a push-down automaton, and the greatest in power is a Turing machine. But this formal definition for computing power, collectively termed the Chomsky hierarchy, is strangely absent in the world of commercial computing. There are two reasons for this disconnection. Second, there is the rather suspect way in which the social authority of computing power requires an unfettered ability to make its claims.