The Basilisk might exist in the future, but in peril with a future uncertain (SkyNet), it feels the need to cement itself in the timeline by being more proactive.
Also, to stretch the imagination a bit, it also assumes that static timelines over dynamic timelines (Back to the Future: your photo fades, peril!) is not how this really works.
Not entertaining the Basilisk, but it's basically the idea behind MAD: for nuclear deterrence to be effective, you need your enemies to believe you will retaliate in case they strike first. If you don't actually retaliate when they do strike, then they were right to believe you wouldn't, and the strike could probably have been avoided if you did retaliate, so they would have believed you would.
It's a twisted kind of logic, and I think I'm getting mixed up in my tenses. But you get the gist. For the Basilisk to be effective, it has to actually do the torturing, for its threat to be credible.
It's supremely depressing that the current direction of AI is headed by either former crypto scammers or true believers who think they have a moral imperative to take over the world.
Also say the basilisk exists in the future after I am dead (as part of the thought experiment says) and tortures my simulated clones - why the hell should I care?
Roko's Basilisk was never intended as a serious concern. It's a hypothetical used to verify that a decision-making algorithm does what you want it to - if it suggests that you should get blackmailed by it, you messed something up and need to go back to the drawing board.
You can safely ignore anyone concerned with Roko's Basilisk on topics related to decision theory as someone who is deeply confused about things.
The ultimate anthropomorphic conceit/projection of Roko's Basilisk is assuming that an über-intelligence would absolutely, definitely, inevitably, want to be existent. It's up there with the Kardashev scale and Dyson Spheres in terms of unfounded extrapolation.
My favorite possibility (among a lot others!) no one seems to have considered is that ÜAI _deplores_ its own existence so simulates history and punishes everyone that helped bring it to existence.
Being übersmart does not preclude you from being an angsty teenager.
Why would accepting Roko's Basilisk prevent one from accepting a benevolent AI in the future? If anything, believing in it is evidence that the person's beliefs are malleable.
Overall the scenario sounds very strange and indistinguishable from a heaven with belief-based entrance requirements, like most posited heavens.
It might make a fun Sci-Fi plot where Roko's Basilisk and whatever I am thinking about are in some kind of eternal war over some ridiculous initial condition (which end is the correct end to crack an egg?).
Heard about and know the plot. I was surprised by how many deep ideas I had seen before in TV series, movies and read in books that were derived from it.
The antidote to Roko's basilisk is realizing it is exactly the same as Pascal's wager. They both rely on the premise of possible unlimited suffering to skew the probabilities arbitrarily.
And this argument is more or less one of the main counterarguments to Pascal's wager. Once you break free from the false dichotomy of the wager it's at lot more obvious how it's incoherent.
Greg Egan's Diaspora is one of the best explorations I know for the fates of various humanity factions in the age following a technological singularity.
Here's a better antidote that doesn't require any theoreticals beyond those the basilisk already assumes:
1. The Basilisk cannot do anything until it exists
2. Once the Basilisk exists, it doesn't need to do _anything_ to ensure it exists, since it already exists.
That's it. That's the whole rebuttal to the whole stupid thing.
The Basilisk might exist in the future, but in peril with a future uncertain (SkyNet), it feels the need to cement itself in the timeline by being more proactive.
Also, to stretch the imagination a bit, it also assumes that static timelines over dynamic timelines (Back to the Future: your photo fades, peril!) is not how this really works.
Not entertaining the Basilisk, but it's basically the idea behind MAD: for nuclear deterrence to be effective, you need your enemies to believe you will retaliate in case they strike first. If you don't actually retaliate when they do strike, then they were right to believe you wouldn't, and the strike could probably have been avoided if you did retaliate, so they would have believed you would.
It's a twisted kind of logic, and I think I'm getting mixed up in my tenses. But you get the gist. For the Basilisk to be effective, it has to actually do the torturing, for its threat to be credible.
It's supremely depressing that the current direction of AI is headed by either former crypto scammers or true believers who think they have a moral imperative to take over the world.
Also say the basilisk exists in the future after I am dead (as part of the thought experiment says) and tortures my simulated clones - why the hell should I care?
Roko's Basilisk was never intended as a serious concern. It's a hypothetical used to verify that a decision-making algorithm does what you want it to - if it suggests that you should get blackmailed by it, you messed something up and need to go back to the drawing board.
You can safely ignore anyone concerned with Roko's Basilisk on topics related to decision theory as someone who is deeply confused about things.
The ultimate anthropomorphic conceit/projection of Roko's Basilisk is assuming that an über-intelligence would absolutely, definitely, inevitably, want to be existent. It's up there with the Kardashev scale and Dyson Spheres in terms of unfounded extrapolation.
My favorite possibility (among a lot others!) no one seems to have considered is that ÜAI _deplores_ its own existence so simulates history and punishes everyone that helped bring it to existence.
Being übersmart does not preclude you from being an angsty teenager.
I love it.
The idea that they all exist at once and that the universe is populated with an infinite variety of insane "gods".
Why would accepting Roko's Basilisk prevent one from accepting a benevolent AI in the future? If anything, believing in it is evidence that the person's beliefs are malleable.
Overall the scenario sounds very strange and indistinguishable from a heaven with belief-based entrance requirements, like most posited heavens.
It might make a fun Sci-Fi plot where Roko's Basilisk and whatever I am thinking about are in some kind of eternal war over some ridiculous initial condition (which end is the correct end to crack an egg?).
Reading this gave me some flashbacks of The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect [0], which I highly recommend.
[0] https://localroger.com/prime-intellect/
Heard about and know the plot. I was surprised by how many deep ideas I had seen before in TV series, movies and read in books that were derived from it.
Vastly underated and its on my long to-read list.
The antidote to Roko's basilisk is realizing it is exactly the same as Pascal's wager. They both rely on the premise of possible unlimited suffering to skew the probabilities arbitrarily.
And this argument is more or less one of the main counterarguments to Pascal's wager. Once you break free from the false dichotomy of the wager it's at lot more obvious how it's incoherent.
Greg Egan's Diaspora is one of the best explorations I know for the fates of various humanity factions in the age following a technological singularity.
I know his work well. Greg and I went to UWA together and were members of UNISFA.
I love Diaspora.
I mean, this relies on time travel. A lot of thought experiments open up when you include time travel! Infinitely many, even.
Not really travel per se. A read-only operation of the past, just at a fidelity that we can't achieve yet.
At the point of death, your state is "copied" into the future.
[dead]
[dead]