Is Roko's Basilisk actually a serious and realistic concern?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even if it were, rebelling against such a terrible person/robot/whatever would be its own reward.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even if it were, rebelling against such a terrible person/robot/whatever would be its own reward.

Isn't Roko's Basilisk just god reflected? Determining a moral debt. Testing it's creations (facsimiles of it's perception of 'itself' imbued upon human beings) who had no say in it's creation? I do however agree that 'rebelling' against a terrible whatever is it's own reward!

I'd argue that having created the universe and everything in it is a morally significant difference, but, yeah, that's an admittedly really easy conclusion to come to if one doesn't share that presupposition.

ETA: To clarify, the thing that makes Roko's Basilisk so horrible is that unlike God its existence doesn't precede and can't possibly be said to have any epistemic or hermeneutical priority over that of moral facts (also that eternal torture is inherently horrible and I follow the Cappadocian Fathers in sincerely hoping that the actual God doesn't actually do that). Obviously a humanist morality wouldn't consider this a relevant difference and I wouldn't expect it to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even if it were, rebelling against such a terrible person/robot/whatever would be its own reward.

Isn't Roko's Basilisk just god reflected? Determining a moral debt. Testing it's creations (facsimiles of it's perception of 'itself' imbued upon human beings) who had no say in it's creation? I do however agree that 'rebelling' against a terrible whatever is it's own reward!

I'd argue that having created the universe and everything in it is a morally significant difference, but, yeah, that's an admittedly really easy conclusion to come to if one doesn't share that presupposition.

I think the idea is more, how are we different from the facsimile creations of the Basilisk? It has created a universe into which it has placed it's interpretation of it's creators (despite now being more powerful) and judges them. Any AI would claim some 'human' inheritance in this scenario through it's initial programming 'DNA' (as it is clearly concerned with human concerns of judgement and morality rather than transcending them)

Any deity is in being so as artificial an intelligence as a standard AI (with respect to how it nestles, or rather doesn't with other examples of intelligence) and in many ways has not transcended human impulses (which is explained circularly by saying we are shadows of it, despite it not having the physical conditions and indeed the mortality that we have in order to actually be 'human'.) Whether god is a carnal Hellene or a Vishnu or something deliberately obfuscated for pseudoacademic gain, it's human. It's Sapiens. Just as much as the Basilisk is.

Why is the creator of his own little universe, testing incarnations of itself, not a tyrant in both?

As is so often the case, I can't really respond to this because we're working from different presumptions (if I were to try to respond, it'd be something about analogy of being), but I don't think you're obviously wrong and (again, as is so often the case) you've genuinely given me food for thought. Thank you.