3 ms·
I'd like to introduce you to my new invention, Roko's Cockatrice. If Roko's Basilisk is real, then it stands to reason that there will eventually be resistance
by rhet0rica 2y ago
I'd like to introduce you to my new invention, Roko's Cockatrice.
If Roko's Basilisk is real, then it stands to reason that there will eventually be resistance to it. Presumably this resistance, aware of the promise that the Basilisk is supposed to have made towards its followers, will target them, and ensure that they are never uploaded or recreated in virtuality.
In short, Roko's Cockatrice cancels out the Basilisk. Even if the Basilisk never comes into existence, the immense risk of it arising—and the fact that everyone knows it could happen—ensures that, if the cult of the Basilisk grows enough, it will be ostracised and stamped out by the majority. Believers are the perfect scapegoat for an authoritarian culture, and a legitimate risk to a rational one—after all, wouldn't True Believers eventually strive to bring about the Basilisk on their own, so they can have the rewards they've promised themselves?
At this point you're probably thinking—"Hey, that's just Pascal's Mugging with extra steps!"—fine. But it's way funnier than the way the article presented the idea.
Stay tuned for Roko's Gorgon, which is just a T-800 sent back in time to kill Roko before he makes the original forum post. (Given enough time, and the possibility of time travel being invented, it has to happen eventually, right?)
- genewitch 2y ago> (Given enough time, and the possibility of time travel being invented, it has to happen eventually, right?) I like to imagine if time travel were real, that we wouldn't necessarily know what was changed, because it would have been changed before we knew about it. Time marches on, so a clone or fork is made of the universe and time just carries on from whatever the tamper was. So, the fact we're discussing it means: time travel exists but Roko's Basilisk does never; or time travel does not exist and the actuality of Roko's basilisk is unknowable. I was going to say any permutation of those four things but I am very tied and I am unsure if that is a weaker argument. Tot zeins