4 ms·
Roko's basilisk makes no sense. Sans magic physics time travel - there's no motivation. One thing all A.I. is, no matter how nefarious, is goal directed. It mig
by dbspin 4y ago
Roko's basilisk makes no sense. Sans magic physics time travel - there's no motivation. One thing all A.I. is, no matter how nefarious, is goal directed. It might have poorly aligned goals, absurd goals, dangerous goals, goals it misunderstands, goals that contradict etc. But ultimately it proceeds toward some form of goal directed reward function. There's zero reward in punishing someone for past behaviour - except in the context of altering their future behaviour.
Since the A.I. would have to already exist (and there's no reason to believe it would be incentivised to even encourage humans to create other, rival A.Is, with potentially differing goals) before it could punish anyone - Q.E.D.: Roko's basilisk has essentially zero likelihood.
Worse - it's an essentially christian eschatological idea. What is this hypothetical A.I. but an avenging angel, a righteous judge at the end of time? It's pure religion. Dark, manipulative, blood sacrifice religion at that.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago> There's zero reward in punishing someone for past behaviour A similar argument regarding Roko's Basilisk is that it is effectively a prisoner's dilemma, where the Basilisk torturing us and us not helping it is the Defect-Defect scenario. It makes no sense for either party to defect. > except in the context of altering their future behaviour. It really seems like a very contrived version of Pascal's mugging.