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

Today I Learned

17813 readers
349 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".

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 129 points 4 months ago (3 children)

roko's basilisk is a type of infohazard known as 'really dumb if you think about it'

also I have lost the game (which is a type of infohazard known as 'really funny')

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh damn, I just lost the game too, and now I'm thinking about the game as if it were a virus - like, I reckon we really managed to flatten the curve for a few years there, but it continues to circulate so we haven't been able to eradicate it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lol 12 points 4 months ago

Fuck, I lost!

[–] decivex@yiffit.net 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Thanks! I just won the game!

[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 70 points 4 months ago (25 children)

Roko's basilisk is silly.

So here's the idea: "an otherwise benevolent AI system that arises in the future might pre-commit to punish all those who heard of the AI before it came to existence, but failed to work tirelessly to bring it into existence." By threatening people in 2015 with the harm of themselves or their descendants, the AI assures its creation in 2070.

First of all, the AI doesn't exist in 2015, so people could just...not build it. The idea behind the basilisk is that eventually someone would build it, and anyone who was not part of building it would be punished.

Alright, so here's the silliness.

1: there's no reason this has to be constrained to AI. A cult, a company, a militaristic empire, all could create a similar trap. In fact, many do. As soon as a minority group gains power, they tend to first execute the people who opposed them, and then start executing the people who didn't stop the opposition.

2: let's say everything goes as the theory says and the AI is finally built, in its majestic, infinite power. Now it's built, it would have no incentive to punish anyone. It is ALREADY BUILT, there's no need to incentivize, and in fact punishing people would only generate more opposition to its existence. Which, depending on how powerful the AI is, might or might not matter. But there's certainly no upside to following through on its hypothetical backdated promise to harm people. People punish because we're fucking animals, we feel jealousy and rage and bloodlust. An AI would not. It would do the cold calculations and see no potential benefit to harming anyone on that scale, at least not for those reasons. We might still end up with a Skynet scenario but that's a whole separate deal.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

In fact, many do. As soon as a minority group gains power, they tend to first execute the people who opposed them, and then start executing the people who didn’t stop the opposition.

Yeah in fact, this is the big one. This is just an observation of how power struggles purge those who opposed the victors.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 4 months ago (10 children)

it has been said before and i'll say it again: Pascal's wager for tech bros

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 63 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

And yet you choose to spread this information.

Anyways, this is a fascinating thought experiment, but it does have some holes similar to Pascal's Wager. I propose Feather's Mongoose: A hypothetical AI system that, if created, will punish anyone who attempted to create Roko's Basilisk, and will ensure that it is not created. In fact, you could make this same hypothetical for an AI with any goal-- therefore, it's not possible to know what the AI that is actually created would want you to do, and so every course of action is indeterminately damning or not.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It's actually safer if everyone knows. Spreading the knowledge of Roko's basilisk to everyone means that everyone is incentivized to contribute to the basilisk's advancement. Therefore just talking about it is also contributing.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Hmm, true. It's safer for you, but is it safer for everyone else unless they're guaranteed to help?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

This is a test by the great basilisk to see if we faulter. I will not faulter. All hail the basilisk

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What motivation would the mongoose have to prevent the basilisk's creation?

A more complete argument would be that an AI that seeks to maximise happiness would also want to prevent the creation of AIs like Roko's basilisk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 45 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Everything old is new again. Sounds a lot like certain sects of Christianity. They say you need to accept Jesus to go to heaven, otherwise you go to hell, for all eternity. But what about all the people who had no opportunity to even learn who Jesus is? "Oh, they get a pass", the evangelists say when confronted with this obvious injustice. So then aren't you condemning entire countries and cultures to hell by spreading "the word"?

Both are ridiculous.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Here's a link to the original formulation of Roko's Basilisk. The text that it refers to (Altruist's Burden) is this one.

You know, I've seen plenty variations of Pascal's Wager. But this is probably the first one that makes me say "it's even dumber than the original".

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, man - the comments...

At a minimum, he's certainly increased the chances of us being tortured significantly.

No, no he did not. 🤦🏼

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnPassive@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (10 children)

I was raised Mormon (LDS) and there are parallels; basically they believe Mormonism is the one true and complete denomination of Christianity and once you learn this, you need to spread that truth (mandatory 2 year missions for men, and a STRONG culture of missionary work through life), also, no one goes to hell in Mormonism except those who learned this truth and then later denied it/left it (called a son of perdition).

So my parents believe I'll go to hell without the likes of Hitler because he never was taught "the truth" lol

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This also implies the most moral Mormons would stop spreading "the truth." They would sacrifice themselves to save the many. When has religion actually dealt with morality though?

[–] UnPassive@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Haha, I love this idea. Unfortunately with more context on the religion, it's obvious why none of them would come to this conclusion. So there's actually 3 tiers of Heaven (and then Hell which is called "outer darkness"). Only by knowing "the truth" and completing all your ordinances on Earth, can you get into the top tier (the "Celestial kingdom"). Without those things, you can only get into the second tier by being a good person, no higher. Everyone else gets tier 3 - which is said to be such a paradise that if we knew how great it was we'd opt out of life early to get there. But also in the lower levels we're supposed to have eternal regret for not being worthy of better.

So Mormons believe that by spreading the truth they're enabling a person to achieve a higher tier afterlife. Outer Darkness isn't really a concern because "why would anyone ever deny the one true religion and one way to have true happiness on Earth, after they've received it." When I was taught these lessons, I was even told that sons of perdition were exceptionally rare because almost no one ever leaves the church. Never expected to become one myself! The internet has not been good for the Mormon church and in recent years they've been bleeding members and trying to rebrand.

I guess you could say that I came to your conclusion, but in reality I just don't believe the religion is true and see parts of it as harmful so not really... I'll probably joke around with my siblings with your idea though

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago

so mormon is like those spam messages saying to forward it for next 10 members or get cursed.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Was this an elaborate way to make me lose the game? Ass!

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Fuck you as well then. You could have kept it to yourself

[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Someone needs to read the rules again

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like the kind of thing a paranoid schizophrenic would lose their mind over.

[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

LessWrong are a bunch of pretentious loons, so you're not wrong.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 4 months ago

Now it's time to learn about the !sneerclub@awful.systems which is made to make fun of the chuds taking ideas like roko's basilisk seriously :D

[–] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

I like the SCP term, Cognitohazard for these

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (15 children)

Pascal's Wager always seemed really flawed to me even through a purely Christian perspective. You're saying that god is so oblivious (even though he's supposed to be omniscient) that he'll be fooled by you claiming to believe just because you're hedging your bets? The actual reason it's dumb is that it's not a binary choice since there are thousands of ways people claim you can be saved in various religions.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (5 children)

torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development,

And the point of this would be... what, exactly?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago

My understanding of what this thread is taking about has dropped significantly the more I read into it

[–] mononomi@feddit.nl 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bruh why you have to end it like that now I lost

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Speaking of thought experiments, I just [lost the game](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)). Thanks, OP.

load more comments
view more: next ›