this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
248 points (89.7% liked)

Today I Learned

17033 readers
1107 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states that an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future would be incentivized to create a virtual reality simulation to torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to incentivize said advancement.It originated in a 2010 post at discussion board LessWrong, a technical forum focused on analytical rational enquiry. The thought experiment's name derives from the poster of the article (Roko) and the basilisk, a mythical creature capable of destroying enemies with its stare.

While the theory was initially dismissed as nothing but conjecture or speculation by many LessWrong users, LessWrong co-founder Eliezer Yudkowsky reported users who panicked upon reading the theory, due to its stipulation that knowing about the theory and its basilisk made one vulnerable to the basilisk itself. This led to discussion of the basilisk on the site being banned for five years. However, these reports were later dismissed as being exaggerations or inconsequential, and the theory itself was dismissed as nonsense, including by Yudkowsky himself. Even after the post's discreditation, it is still used as an example of principles such as Bayesian probability and implicit religion. It is also regarded as a simplified, derivative version of Pascal's wager.

Found out about this after stumbling upon this Kyle Hill video on the subject. It reminds me a little bit of "The Game".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Whilst I agree that it's definitely not something to be taken seriously, I think you've missed the point and magnitude of the prospective punishment. As you say, current groups already punish those who did not aid their assent, but that punishment is finite, even if fatal. The prospective AI punishment would be to have your consciousness 'moved' to an artificial environment and tortured for ever. The point being not to punish people, but to provide an incentive to bring the AI into existence sooner, so it can achieve its 'altruistic' goals faster. Basically, if the AI does come in to existence, you'd better be on the team making that happen as soon as possible, or you'll be tortured forever.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The prospective AI punishment would be to have your consciousness ‘moved’ to an artificial environment and tortured for ever.

No, it wouldn't, because that's never going to happen. Consciousness isn't software - it doesn't matter how much people want to buy into such fantasies.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because we don't have the ability now doesn't mean it's not possible. Consciousness isn't fully understood, but unless we want to introduce magical concepts like an immortal soul, our brains operate on cause and effect just like everything else.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because we don’t have the ability now doesn’t mean it’s not possible.

Yeah... no. It's about as likely as humanity "colonizing" space - it's not going to happen.

Consciousness isn’t fully understood,

True... and conflating consciousness with the trappings of digital technology is doing the exact opposite of getting us closer to any understanding of it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"yeah...no" isn't an argument.

To be clear, I'm not saying the basilisk is a real concern, and I'm not saying we're anywhere close to being able to transfer consciousness. It could be a thousand years or a million years. But we don't have any basis to say it's impossible. It's not saying anything new to announce we can't do it currently. Obviously!

(Also the book "A City on Mars" by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith does a great job addressing why trying colonize Mars right now is a bad idea. Which isn't to say it's impossible or we won't ever colonize it. Just that we need more research and capabilities before doing it)

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But we don’t have any basis to say it’s impossible.

We have no basis to say it's possible, either - as I've stated before, this entire sci-fi trope is based on nothing more than techno-fetishists trying to conflate consciousness with information technology... and sci-fi tropes doesn't get more wonky than that.

It could be a thousand years or a million years.

Considering that we'll be lucky if we can maintain Victorian-era levels of industry by the end of this century, I'd say a fallacious belief in "progress" is rather inappropriate these days.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm starting to suspect that masquenox is part of a propaganda campaign led by the basilisk itself! They just seem a little too serious about us not taking this seriously.

Getting strong "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" vibes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

I’m starting to suspect that masquenox is part of a propaganda campaign led by the basilisk itself!

We all have our price - it turns out mine is... dental cover.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting it could, or would, happen, merely pointing out the premise of the concept as outlined by Roko as I felt the commenter above was missing that. As I said, it's not something I'd take seriously, it's just a thought experiment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I suspect the basilisk reveals more about how the human mind is inclined to think up of heaven and hell scenarios.

Some combination of consciousness leading to more imagination than we know what to do with and more awareness than we’re ready to grapple with. And so there are these meme “attractors” where imagination, idealism, dread and motivation all converge to make some basic vibe of a thought irresistible.

Otherwise, just because I’m not on top of this … the whole thing is premised on the idea that we’re likely to be consciousnesses in a simulation? And then there’s the fear that our consciousnesses, now, will be extracted in the future somehow?

  1. That’s a massive stretch on the point about our consciousness being extracted into the future somehow. Sounds like pure metaphysical fantasy wrapped in singularity tech-bro.
  2. If there are simulated consciousnesses, it is all fair game TBH. There’d be plenty of awful stuff happening. The basilisk seems like just a way to encapsulate the fact in something catchy.

At this point, doesn’t the whole collapse completely into a scary fairy tale you’d tell tech-bro children? Seriously, I don’t get it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, the hypothetical posed does reveal more about the human mind, as I mention in another comment, really it's just a thought experiment as to whether the concept of an entity that doesn't (yet) exist can change our behavior in the present. It bears similarities to Pascal's Wager in considering an action, or inaction, that would displease a potential powerful entity that we don't know to exist. The nits about extracting your consciousness are just framing, and not something to consider literally.

Basically, is it rational to make a sacrifice now avoid a massive penalty (eternal torture/not getting into heaven) that might be imposed by an entity you either don't know to exist, or that you think might come into existence but isn't now?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fair point, but doesn't change the overall calculus.

If such an AI is ever invented, it will probably be used by humans to torture other humans in this manner.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think the concept is that the AI is just so powerful that humans can't use it, it uses them, theoretically for their own benefit. However, yes, I agree people would just try to use it to be awful to each other.

Really it's just a thought experiment as to whether the concept of an entity that doesn't (yet) exist can change our behavior in the present.