TIL about Roko's Basilisk, a thought experiment considered by some to be an "information hazard" - a concept or idea that can cause you harm by you simply knowing/understanding it
TIL about Roko's Basilisk, a thought experiment considered by some to be an "information hazard" - a concept or idea that can cause you harm by you simply knowing/understanding it
Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states that an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future would be incentivized to create a virtual reality simulation to torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to incentivize said advancement.It originated in a 2010 post at discussion board LessWrong, a technical forum focused on analytical rational enquiry. The thought experiment's name derives from the poster of the article (Roko) and the basilisk, a mythical creature capable of destroying enemies with its stare.
While the theory was initially dismissed as nothing but conjecture or speculation by many LessWrong users, LessWrong co-founder Eliezer Yudkowsky reported users who panicked upon reading the theory, due to its stipulation that knowing about the theory and its basilisk made one vulnerable to the basilisk itself. This led to discussion of the basilisk on the site being banned for five years. However, these reports were later dismissed as being exaggerations or inconsequential, and the theory itself was dismissed as nonsense, including by Yudkowsky himself. Even after the post's discreditation, it is still used as an example of principles such as Bayesian probability and implicit religion. It is also regarded as a simplified, derivative version of Pascal's wager.
Found out about this after stumbling upon this Kyle Hill video on the subject. It reminds me a little bit of "The Game".
You're viewing a single thread.
Pascal's Wager always seemed really flawed to me even through a purely Christian perspective. You're saying that god is so oblivious (even though he's supposed to be omniscient) that he'll be fooled by you claiming to believe just because you're hedging your bets? The actual reason it's dumb is that it's not a binary choice since there are thousands of ways people claim you can be saved in various religions.
Most importantly, since there are infinite other options in-between that are just as likely as God existing, some can have negative reward values if you choose "worship God anyway". It is just as likely that there is a vengeful Anti-God that will torture you for eternity if you worship the Abrahamic God, which would completely negate the rewards from the original wager.
The "wager" that makes the most sense to me, then, is to behave as if there is no god that cares what you do or who you worship. Try your best to be a positive force in the world, because whether anything we do matters to the universe or not, it matters to us humans.
I mean he ruined a man's entire family to win a bet with someone he doesn't even like, being this oblivious is on-brand for God.
Very true - Old Testament god in particular was really dumb and didn't even know what was going on in the next town over.
You’re saying that god is so oblivious (even though he’s supposed to be omniscient) that he’ll be fooled by you claiming to believe just because you’re hedging your bets?
More that repetition reinforces an idea. By commiting to the bit and accepting a God at face value, you reduce your psychological defenses when the priest or prophet comes around with the next ask.
So you admit you believe in God? Then you won't mind putting a few coins in the collection plate to prove it.
Oh, you've already donated? Surely you'd be comfortable making a confession.
My son, you've got so many sins! Surely you'd like to join our prayer group to get yourself right with the God we all agree exists.
Can't have prayer without works! Time to do some penance.
That's...what?
It is also regarded as a simplified, derivative version of Pascal’s wager.
It was a response to this part.
Ah gotcha I somehow missed that part
His whole point though makes those other thousands irrelevant. Even if there's a chance, however small, you're still better off doing it just in case.
Here's my favorite variation of the same pragmatism.
But if he considered that, then he also would have considered not believing in anything was an equally probable bet for salvation. Which is clearly not the case.
Why is it equally probable to believe nothing? No atheist is preaching damnation if you believe in God lol.
Preaching of damnation is not evidence of damnation. There is just as likely a god who punishes you for believing anything wrong as there is a god who punishes you for not believing in them specifically.
Evidence was never part of his theory. Why are you using it as an argument?
He was not in the business of making up new possible religions. Only assessing the currently geographically popular ones.
You seem to not understand the discussion we're having.
What a pathetic cop out response. I assure you I do, though I shouldn't have to.