5 ms·

How is this more than a souped-up version of Pascal's wager? You better believe in God now because if you don't and he exists, you'll rot in hell.

by iSnow 12y ago

Ono-Sendai 12y ago
It sounds exactly like Pascal's wager to me, which means it suffers from all the same problems.
jarman 12y ago
Pascal's wager at least involves widely known and culturally influential concept. This is more like small kid drawing a bogeymen, being scared of it and throwing a tantrum
Tenoke 12y ago
Just in case anyone cares what the difference is - most possible Gods are about equally likely (no reason to think that one is much more likely to exist than another), while possible AIs which have reached SuperIntelligence status (to the point where they can simulate people for a start) are more likely to be certain ways (for example, self-preservation is not a consideration for an immortal God, nor is research something such a God must engage in, in order to gain knowledge, etc.).
- davidgerard 12y ago
  As far as I can tell (and I've read LW since 2010), you're asserting that on no evidence.
  - Tenoke 12y ago
    I am giving the reasons why I think so, if you disagree, you can point out what is wrong in my line of thinking: AIs are more likely to care for self-preservation (in some way), because AIs that don't are less likely to exist (since they die earlier), while Gods could have other mechanisms for survival (such as being immortal right off the bat).
    - iSnow 12y ago
      Still the point remains that we have not yet encountered any superintelligent entities, AI's or deities and therefore any statement about their capabilities, intents or character are pure speculation - indeed it seems to me that usually people just extrapolate human behavior.
crdoconnor 12y ago
* Because Pascal's wager could apply to any possible variation of supreme being - including non-sensical ones and ones that will punish you if you DO believe in them. * Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you). * Pascal's wager does concern itself with the possibility that you are currently in a simulation.
- a_bonobo 12y ago
  >Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you). At the risk of sounding flippant: What's the difference? If the AI is so powerful that it can simulate my thoughts (which would imply that thoughts and all of life is 100% deterministic), it has to be so powerful that it's practically omnipotent, and therefore, a God.
  - thegeomaster 12y ago
    The difference is at most the terminology. I'm sure that a lot of weed-smoking metaphysicists can say this better than I can, but the whole point of calling something God is that it's beyond your perception, and as such your perception can't help you understand it. Similarly, if your neurons are simulated by an AI, you can do nothing to prove its existence or non-existence. It's the same thing, IMHO.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    From what I understood, it doesn't require 100% determinism OR a perfect simulation for the thought experiment to hold. It just needs enough to sort most of the humans into "will help basilisk come into existence" and "won't help basilisk". It probably doesn't even need to be 100% accurate at that. I don't think being able to imperfectly simulate thoughts requires Godlike ability, either. I could see it happening in my life time. Assuming I'm not being simulated right now, that is :/
  - Rapzid 12y ago
    A universe simulator wouldn't need to be "smart", it would just need to function.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

How is this more than a souped-up version of Pascal's wager? You better believe in God now because if you don't and he exists, you'll rot in hell.

by iSnow 12y ago

How is this more than a souped-up version of Pascal's wager? You better believe in God now because if you don't and he exists, you'll rot in hell.

Ono-Sendai 12y ago

It sounds exactly like Pascal's wager to me, which means it suffers from all the same problems.

jarman 12y ago

Pascal's wager at least involves widely known and culturally influential concept. This is more like small kid drawing a bogeymen, being scared of it and throwing a tantrum

Tenoke 12y ago

Just in case anyone cares what the difference is - most possible Gods are about equally likely (no reason to think that one is much more likely to exist than another), while possible AIs which have reached SuperIntelligence status (to the point where they can simulate people for a start) are more likely to be certain ways (for example, self-preservation is not a consideration for an immortal God, nor is research something such a God must engage in, in order to gain knowledge, etc.).

davidgerard 12y ago
As far as I can tell (and I've read LW since 2010), you're asserting that on no evidence.
- Tenoke 12y ago
  I am giving the reasons why I think so, if you disagree, you can point out what is wrong in my line of thinking: AIs are more likely to care for self-preservation (in some way), because AIs that don't are less likely to exist (since they die earlier), while Gods could have other mechanisms for survival (such as being immortal right off the bat).
  - iSnow 12y ago
    Still the point remains that we have not yet encountered any superintelligent entities, AI's or deities and therefore any statement about their capabilities, intents or character are pure speculation - indeed it seems to me that usually people just extrapolate human behavior.

crdoconnor 12y ago

* Because Pascal's wager could apply to any possible variation of supreme being - including non-sensical ones and ones that will punish you if you DO believe in them. * Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you). * Pascal's wager does concern itself with the possibility that you are currently in a simulation.

a_bonobo 12y ago
>Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you). At the risk of sounding flippant: What's the difference? If the AI is so powerful that it can simulate my thoughts (which would imply that thoughts and all of life is 100% deterministic), it has to be so powerful that it's practically omnipotent, and therefore, a God.
- thegeomaster 12y ago
  The difference is at most the terminology. I'm sure that a lot of weed-smoking metaphysicists can say this better than I can, but the whole point of calling something God is that it's beyond your perception, and as such your perception can't help you understand it. Similarly, if your neurons are simulated by an AI, you can do nothing to prove its existence or non-existence. It's the same thing, IMHO.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  From what I understood, it doesn't require 100% determinism OR a perfect simulation for the thought experiment to hold. It just needs enough to sort most of the humans into "will help basilisk come into existence" and "won't help basilisk". It probably doesn't even need to be 100% accurate at that. I don't think being able to imperfectly simulate thoughts requires Godlike ability, either. I could see it happening in my life time. Assuming I'm not being simulated right now, that is :/
- Rapzid 12y ago
  A universe simulator wouldn't need to be "smart", it would just need to function.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]