4 ms·
Pascal's wager for a different time and place. I have never thought about it that way. That's interesting.
by jmann99999 4y ago
Pascal's wager for a different time and place. I have never thought about it that way. That's interesting.
- meghan_rain 4y agoI keep seeing lots of parallels between believing in God and blackbox AI systems. Especially in forums like lesswrong. Ironic, because most people there would be offended if you told them they are religious.
- ChatGTP 4y agoI’m the same, I really think “AI” worship is a new type of religion. People quite honestly believe we’re about to meet God like intelligence and inherit eternal life from such a meeting. I guess anything is possible but have I heard this before ?
- latexr 4y agoPascal’s wager is full of holes[1]. I agree with you that these ideas are similar, and it’s because of that that your parent comment deserves scrutiny rather than blind acceptance. For example: > If it’s doomsday, it doesn’t matter whether I act as if it’s doomsday or if I look for opportunities. Either way I’m fucked. There are different degrees of “being fucked”. Not everyone is disadvantaged the same in a doomsday scenario: it does not literally happen in a day and it does not necessarily spell doom for those who caused it or are outside their sphere of influence. It follows that someone who looked for alternatives rather than fully embracing the system might stand a better chance. Furthermore, a scenario which is not yet inevitable may become so because people think it is inevitable and give up or act in a way that reinforces it. That’s the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Note I’m not advocating a specific approach to this case. My aim is to highlight that while the initial argument seems logically airtight, it is deeply flawed and you shouldn’t take it as the true solution. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager