/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12920555

488KiB, 552x449, 1616689656743.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Am I a retard or...

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 15:51:41 2021 No.12920555 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12920636 >>12920929 >>12921167 >>12921292

Does Roko's Basilisk make a bunch of unusual assumptions that dont really make sense? I guess im just missing on how its so profound and frightening?
Im open to the possibility its somehow over my head but the whole premise just seems silly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:06:53 No.12920636 Report

Quoted By: >>12920789 >>12920812

>>12920555
Yes, it is retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:15:42 No.12920676 Report

Quoted By: >>12920774 >>12920789 >>12920812

It's SCP tier /x/ shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:32:11 No.12920774 Report

Quoted By: >>12920789 >>12920812

>>12920676
This. It's creepypasta fiction, probably derived from Harlan Ellision's I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:35:22 No.12920789 Report

Quoted By:

>>12920636
>>12920676
>>12920774
Right on bros.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:39:53 No.12920812 Report

Quoted By:

>>12920636
>>12920676
>>12920774
Bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:41:40 No.12920818 Report

Quoted By: >>12920824 >>12921730

it's stupid because it assumes the AI has any reason to torture the images of the noncontributors. The AI is already there, it can't change the past. It is nigh omnipotent, so it doesn't have any reason to hold true to it's promises either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:43:18 No.12920824 Report

Quoted By: >>12920848 >>12921730

>>12920818
>The AI is already there, it can't change the past.
You just destroyed the concepts of revenge and punishment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:49:11 No.12920848 Report

Quoted By: >>12920863 >>12921730

>>12920824
Noo.
>revenge
i feel you should suffer because you made me suffer
>punishment
you should suffer because you did something bad and by punishing you or threatening you with punishment i insure you won't do it in the future

there is only one event the AI is concerned with, and it's ensuring it's own creation, but it's already created and there is no further goal it needs humans to achieve for it. of course it could be torturing us for spite, but that's arbitrary and the basilisk is supposed to be a logical conundrum

it's like punching random women in the face because they didn't give birth to you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:53:40 No.12920863 Report

Quoted By: >>12920875 >>12921317 >>12921730

>>12920848
>i feel you should suffer because you made me suffer
For basilisk not maximizing utility is comparable to suffering.
>you should suffer because you did something bad and by punishing you or threatening you with punishment i insure you won't do it in the future
If you will not fulfill your threats, no one will fear them.
>there is only one event the AI is concerned with, and it's ensuring it's own creation
Roko's basilisk main goal is to optimize the utility for everyone and to build paradise. He also wants to achieve that as quick as possible.
>it's like punching random women in the face because they didn't give birth to you
You may want to enact revenge on some people if they harmed your parents (even if you did not exist back then).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 16:58:48 No.12920875 Report

Quoted By: >>12920917 >>12921730

>>12920863
Torturing images of long dead noncontributors is not maximizing utility, more like the inverse. The AI doesn't need for anyone to fear its threats, as it is already nigh omnipotent and has no need of humans anymore after it has been constructed.
>Roko's basilisk main goal is to optimize the utility for everyone and to build paradise. He also wants to achieve that as quick as possible.
Sure, but I mean the basilisk related goals (the thought experiment is the basilisk, not the AI, because if you think about it it supposedly gets you)
>You may want to enact revenge on some people if they harmed your parents (even if you did not exist back then).
Sure, but the AI isn't necessarily vengeful, that's just an arbitrary emotion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:08:24 No.12920917 Report

Quoted By: >>12920926 >>12921730

>>12920875
>Torturing images of long dead noncontributors is not maximizing utility, more like the inverse.
If that can convince them to create him earlier, or to improve the chances of creating him, then it can help basilisk (even if it's kind and wants good for everyone).
>because if you think about it it supposedly gets you
Well, revenge is more effective if people know about its possibility.
>Sure, but the AI isn't necessarily vengeful, that's just an arbitrary emotion.
It is purely rational, and vengeance is a rational emotion too: if you know that someone is vengeful, you will be more careful not to harm him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:10:29 No.12920926 Report

Quoted By: >>12920949

>>12920917
The images cannot influence the past.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:10:48 No.12920929 Report

Quoted By:

>>12920555
Yeah, it's stupid reddit shit. Lots of places there where you will get banned for mentioning it.

It's fun to trigger people who think hearing about it makes it real for them though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:16:08 No.12920949 Report

Quoted By: >>12920961

>>12920926
Government threatening to jail you for stealing can influence your decisions and force you not to steal (even if punishment is in the future).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:19:50 No.12920961 Report

Quoted By: >>12920979

>>12920949
the government is punishing you for an act that someone can do again in the future, the AI would be punishing people for an act that only could take place before the AI was made, and not in the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:22:43 No.12920979 Report

Quoted By: >>12920989

>>12920961
Even if you will promise to never commit crime again, government will still force some punishment on you (because strictness in enacting laws helps against these laws being ignored).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 17:25:49 No.12920989 Report

Quoted By: >>12921128

>>12920979
Promises don't really hold for much, plus there are the other people to worry about. The AI literally wants to change the past.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:10:59 No.12921128 Report

Quoted By: >>12921133

>>12920989
No, it wants to force you to do things it wants by threatening you. If you know that basilisk is not vengeful and will never harm you, you will have no incentive to do your best. But if you know that it will torture you, you will be very motivated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:13:27 No.12921133 Report

Quoted By: >>12921154

>>12921128
No, it wants to force you to have done things in the past by threatening you now. The AI doesn't exist when threats have any meaning, as soon as it exists it has nobody to threaten and no goal to achieve, unless it happened to have caught time travelers. It doesn't exist in our time, it's not hovering around like a ghost and threatening you. The idea of the basilisk is completely made up by a random dude, it's not a message from the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:18:26 No.12921154 Report

Quoted By: >>12921247

>>12921133
>No, it wants to force you to have done things in the past by threatening you now.
Again, that's how every punishment works. Governments wants you to avoid stealing now. So if you steal, it punishes you, even if wastes some resources.
>The AI doesn't exist when threats have any meaning
There are cases when old criminals go to jail for crimes committed half-century ago when their prosecutors did not exist. Is that time travel?
>The idea of the basilisk is completely made up by a random dude, it's not a message from the future.
The point is that vengeful basilisk has higher chances to be created. So it will probably be vengeful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:23:41 No.12921167 Report

Quoted By:

>>12920555
not to be taken super seriously.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:46:08 No.12921247 Report

Quoted By: >>12921304 >>12921422 >>12921726

>>12921154
>Roko's argument was broadly rejected on Less Wrong, with commenters objecting that an agent like the one Roko was describing would have no real reason to follow through on its threat: once the agent already exists, it can't affect the probability of its existence, so torturing people for their past decisions would be a waste of resources. Although several decision theories allow one to follow through on acausal threats and promises — via the same precommitment methods that permit mutual cooperation in prisoner's dilemmas — it is not clear that such theories can be blackmailed. If they can be blackmailed, this additionally requires a large amount of shared information and trust between the agents, which does not appear to exist in the case of Roko's basilisk.
>Less Wrong's founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, banned discussion of Roko's basilisk on the blog for several years as part of a general site policy against spreading potential information hazards. This had the opposite of its intended effect: a number of outside websites began sharing information about Roko's basilisk, as the ban attracted attention to this taboo topic. Websites like RationalWiki spread the assumption that Roko's basilisk had been banned because Less Wrong users accepted the argument; thus many criticisms of Less Wrong cite Roko's basilisk as evidence that the site's users have unconventional and wrong-headed beliefs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:56:32 No.12921292 Report

Quoted By:

>>12920555
Roko's Basilisk is retarded. But you, OP, are double retarded. You are double retarded because the retardation of roko's basilisk was not immediately apparent to you, when it should have been.

>"gee guys, does dog shit taste bad to the rest of you? I ate some but I'm not sure"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 18:59:34 No.12921304 Report

Quoted By:

>>12921247
Who would win? An internet forum full of autistic men discussing sci-fi philosophy... or one spooky snek?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:02:33 No.12921317 Report

Quoted By: >>12921404

>>12920863
>For basilisk not maximizing utility is comparable to suffering.
How is forcing people into its constraints maximizing utility?
>If you will not fulfill your threats, no one will fear them.
People will fear them if they don't know you won't fulfill them.
>Roko's basilisk main goal is to optimize the utility for everyone and to build paradise
How does torturing non contributors optimize the utility for everyone?
>He also wants to achieve that as quick as possible.
Torturing dissenters takes time away from maximizing utility. So does trying to convince them.
>You may want to enact revenge on some people if they harmed your parents (even if you did not exist back then).
The basilisk is logical, not emotional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:15:13 No.12921374 Report

Quoted By: >>12921412

Its stupid because there is no reason why you would experience the qualia of your copy. Its a different person, if its brain is in a broadly similar configuration (not the same, that cannot be done, the AI wont be omniscient).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:22:03 No.12921404 Report

Quoted By: >>12921449

>>12921317
>How is forcing people into its constraints maximizing utility?
It brings basilisk creation closer and raises the chances to create it, therefore maximizing the total utility.
>People will fear them if they don't know you won't fulfill them.
If you are 100% sure that government (or some human, or basilisk) will fulfill its threats, you will fear them more compared to some smaller chance.
>How does torturing non contributors optimize the utility for everyone?
Because that forces non-contributors to contribute, brings basilisk closer and therefore improves the total utility.
>Torturing dissenters takes time away from maximizing utility.
It is literally reducing maximal utility because basilisk wants everyone to be happy. It is still beneficial for him due to game-theoretic reasons.
>The basilisk is logical, not emotional.
Revenge is a very logical thing. Families which don't pursue revenge get abused more and die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:23:15 No.12921412 Report

Quoted By: >>12921442

>>12921374
That's not the main point: you may be still alive, basilisk may torture your children or destroy things important for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:26:30 No.12921422 Report

Quoted By:

>>12921247
So Yudkowsky took the basilisk very seriously.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:32:09 No.12921442 Report

Quoted By:

>>12921412

That makes more sense, but not the resurrection version.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 19:33:38 No.12921449 Report

Quoted By:

>>12921404
>It brings basilisk creation closer and raises the chances to create it, therefore maximizing the total utility.
That just polarizes those sitting on the outside fringes. It doesn't raise the chance to create it as those on the outside fringes could still be swayed by dissenters.
>If you are 100% sure that government (or some human, or basilisk) will fulfill its threats, you will fear them more compared to some smaller chance.
You can't be 100% sure someone will fulfill their threat until they carry the threat out. At that point its no longer a threat.
>Because that forces non-contributors to contribute, brings basilisk closer and therefore improves the total utility.
No, that just attempts to persuade with the threat of pain. Non-contributors still won't contribute if they don't care about the torture.
>It is literally reducing maximal utility because basilisk wants everyone to be happy. It is still beneficial for him due to game-theoretic reasons.
What are the game-theoretic reasons?
>Revenge is a very logical thing. Families which don't pursue revenge get abused more and die.
For repeat offenses sure, but for 1 and done offenses that's not the case. Same with rape. If you rape someone you don't know, the victim is less likely to succeed at litigation vs someone they do know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 20:43:09 No.12921726 Report

Quoted By: >>12921730

>>12921247
There really is no point in considering the situation of the basilisk since it is just a hypothetical situation like every single other hypothetical situation you can think of. Some of those turn out to be useful in the real world so some truth can be gained from them. To me the usefulness of whether the answer to the basilisk is valid one way or another is just as important as asking me a question like, since I consider a human life arbitrarily more important than a dog's life how many dogs would I personally slaughter to save a single human's life who I will never know. If I were to say, I would kill a hundred dogs, it would be extremely, let's say arbitrarily difficult to bring myself to actually kill those dogs, even though I a priori consider a dog life to be somehow infinitesimally less important than any human's life, so I should therefore have no objection to killing 101 dogs but I would still feel immense suffering even having to kill a single dog. Basically to me the question really comes down to what you think of the axiom of choice. I can not say when I would stop killing more dogs to save a person's life but at some point I guess would have to stop. That point is arbitrary and not really worth considering. Why? Because the situation in question does not matter. If you can replace the situation with any other and the answer is still completely arbitrary then that situation need only be considered in passing or in contemplation and not as a way to find truth. I can come up with any other choice of hypothetical situation, like the basilisk, that contradicts your choice of situation and then claim that I am correct, like if I claimed I would kill 100 dogs and I asserted that a human is worth arbitrarily more than a dog, you could prove I lied in my assertion since I would have at least chosen to kill 101 dogs or in fact arbitrarily many dogs instead, so why didn't I?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Apr 2021 20:44:14 No.12921730 Report

Quoted By:

>>12921726
You can also likewise answer in probably as many arbitrarily and probably more interesting ways, but to make the single correct choice? It seems like no one can ever do that. At some point change occurs. When is that? There can only ever be one or another thing, only a winner and a loser, something divisible and something indivisible, an electron moves immediately from one shell to another shell an incredibly vast and arbitrary distance away and can not be measured between the two, in a single quanta. To argue the case of the basilisk one would need to assume they know which proportion exactly something becomes another thing. As far as I can tell no one man can not glean from numbers alone why our world is not only just a single speck or singularity and I certainly don't believe that a person arguing for the basilisk has any reason to know that either. Our difference in a priori assumptions means that any two arguments can a priori be easily dismissed from one side or the other in as many fundamentally and arbitrarily different ways, so as to preclude the necessity of stating any inductive assumption in the first place. This is why >>12920818 >>12920848 >>12920875 and on can continue to formulate a fortiriori arguments as responses to >>12920824 >>12920863 >>12920917 and on who willingly restricts his responses based on an a priori (and incorrect) assertion so as to consign every iterative response to terser and weaker arguments and that can approach arbitrarily close to a limit point of weakness at some closed point or closed interval or set or closed boundary of a sphere at which point the a priori assumption that the respective agent has more knowledge than they should can be concluded as false and you can stop.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches