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

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, and I LOL at the fact that there are actually people who are literally having nightmares and losing sleep over this.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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

[afleitch]

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!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[afleitch]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it has anything to do with Rococo (the single worst artistic style in history) then, yes, this strangely named creature is indeed a serious and realistic concern.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

If it has anything to do with Rococo (the single worst artistic style in history) then, yes, this strangely named creature is indeed a serious and realistic concern.

Funny but it has nothing to do with that. It's better described as the type of idea that gets created when people who actually are intelligent have a message board where they sometimes behave like 4channers.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Also come to think of it, "Roko's Basilisk" would actually make a pretty good melodic hardcore band name.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Even if it's real, there's nothing we can do about it, so why worry?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Even if it's real, there's nothing we can do about it, so why worry?

Well theoretically there are things you can do about it. One interesting theory is the best defense against it is buying a lottery ticket.

But what Nathan said above isn't entirely in sync with the "theory", Roko's Basilisk is not supposed to be some sort of evil malicious AI like HAL or AM, it's actually a "good" one. So basically this super-AI comes up with how to solve all the world's problems like hunger and war, and can alleviate human suffering sooner the sooner it comes into existence. Thus it might punish those who did not help it come into existence, since in doing so they effectively prolonged human suffering, and such an entity would theoretically have to punish those who stand in the way of it to be effective.

The problem of course is even ignoring the questions as to whether this sort of thing is technologically possible (in addition to the fact that it also involves things like running a simulation of every single human being that has ever lived in the thought experiment, even being to able to accurately simulate one human being's mind is unfathomable with any technology we'll see in our lifetimes), it also brings up the question as to whether such a entity would care about this, I remember one critic comparing it to a human being angry that an ant colony isn't worshiping him/her. Especially for past offenses. Most would agree that creating a simulation of Hitler just to torture him would be pointless and a waste of resources for the entity...much less any humans that simply neglected to help create it. The fear of an actual HAL or AM type evil intelligence is probably far more plausible...which is not to say particularly likely either.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I think xkcd nailed what a super-powered AI would actually be like:

[Antonio the Sixth]

I did actually have a hard time sleeping for a few days after learning about I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, so I won't judge anyone for being concerned by that.

That said... no. Not only is it probably technologically impossible and philosophically doubtful whether that could ever happen, but the rationality for the AI doing that makes absolutely no sense and borders on circular logic.

[SteveRogers]

YOU FOOL, YOU'VE DOOMED ALL OF ATLAS BY MAKING THIS THREAD!

Jk, everyone knows that the AI will only have an incentive to follow through on torturing those who are dumb enough to believe that Roko's Basilisk is a sound argument.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

On this note, I recommend this book below to everyone:



A Science Fiction story in which technology creates the Hindu gods.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes.  Haven't you ever wondered why y'all are posting here and not doing something productive? The Basilisk is making us do it!

[Antonio the Sixth]

On this note, I recommend this book below to everyone:



A Science Fiction story in which technology creates the Hindu gods.

Looked it up, it sounds fascinating.

It's hilarious on so many levels that a group of people who think themselves too smart to believe in God or hell are terrified of this thing, which is just Evangelical Christianity with belief in AI research replacing belief in Jesus Christ.

I find it very interesting in some way. Goes to show that the notion of deity is so universal that it can emerge even on the basis of an ostensibly hyper-rationalistic framework (although, again, I still don't see how the rationality of this makes any friggin' sense, but anyway).