Accidentally read roko's basilisk

this is such an autistic nerd thing to get spooked about
reading this thread made me mad
fuck you

>>35535630
Link to Roko's discord?

File: 1488659387793.png (352KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 600x600px

>>35535630
>mom learned of Roko's Basilisk
Oh shit guys what do I do

seriously though, roko's basilisk definitely helped me battle my depression and get a gf. you guys should check it out if you haven't.

File: 1436352639710.jpg (20KB, 208x250px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 208x250px

>>35535630
>intentionally read roko's basilisk

Anybody who seriously gets spooked by this is retarded.

It's literally impossible to "simulate" your consciousness back to life.

Someone blz explain

>>35535753
even if it's possible, who cares
oh boo hoo im gonna get tortured by a robot, so scary
i don't give a FUCK

File: 1489538812359.jpg (296KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 700x700px

>>35535630
>>35535630
>accidentally read Roko's basilisk in 2012
>unironically finishing my bachelor's in computer science this April
>unironically recommend Kaczynski's manifesto to people (and shill it on /pol/)

i don't know how much longer i can keep playing both sides

>>35535791
It's basically the theory that 1. A super Intelligent AI will be created with the ability to simulate human consciousness, and 2. When simulating human consciousness, it will infinitely torture whoever didn't try their hardest to bring said AI into being.

There's some psuedo-scienctific bullshit to it that makes nerds shit their pants for some reason.

>>35535753
>dualist
lol

>>35535802
you'll start giving a fuck about half a second into the torture

>>35535816
What if there's an equally powerful AI that will infinitely torture anyone who DID try to bring it into existence? What if you accidentally help the wrong one?

>>35535830
>you'll start giving a fuck about half a second into the torture
yeah but i'm not being tortured now, so future-me is the one who cares, not present-me, and future-me might not even exist

tell present-me why he should give a shit

>>35535816
>psuedo-scienctific bullshit
also known as philosophy

>makes nerds shit their pants
children's cartoons and card games and a wide variety of other trivial things often have the same effect

>>35535846
Roko's AI isn't acting arbitrarily

it's a utilitarian god that has human flourishing as its number one priority, and the torture is supposed to act as motivation for us to bring it into existence faster (because once it exists the vast majority of humans will be vastly happier)

unfortunately for us, the best way to make the threat credible is to precommit to follow up on it and actually perform the torture

>>35535868
why did present-you bother to make this post if future-you is the only one who'll receive an answer, or even have any memory of making it?
because there's a continuity between your selves.
I can't tell you you "should" do anything in a vacuum because of the is-ought problem, but I'm fairly sure acting to prevent extreme pain in your future is consistent with the rest of your motivations and behaviors

It seems similar to AM from "I have no mouth and must scream"

>>35535942
Yeah but what if there's a different AI that will do the opposite? How do you know which one you're bringing into existence? If it's the basilisk, everyone else gets tortured. If it's the anti-basilisk, YOU get tortured.

PROTIP: this whole thing is basically atheists reinventing religion, specifically Hell, and freaking out about it to the point of considering belief "just in case". It's hilarious.

>>35536009
>but I'm fairly sure acting to prevent extreme pain in your future is consistent with the rest of your motivations and behaviors
that's where you're wrong bucko

>>35535630
>roko's basilisk
Dumb because it's predicated on the notion that you have to simulate the universe in order to predict behaviors and that's just not true.

>>35535830
Believing consciousness can be simulated makes you a dualist though.

Literally how does consciousness work without a body?

>>35536155
>Literally how does consciousness work without a body?
consciousness is all of the electric impulses that are going on in our brains. you dont need your butthole in order to be able to think

>>35535899
Philosophy actually uses logic and reasoning and is deductive and can have theories disproved so it's not even pseudo scientific as long as everything you base your theories off of are also testable and falsified.

Prove to me that you need to create a simulated universe in order to predict behavior and I'll show you AI's that can already predict behavior without needing to simulate the universe.

(unless you consider simulating moves to be simulating a faucet of the universe in which case universe is semantic and the fear over simulating consciousness actually comes down to simulating the logical set of moves needed in order to make a decision and that means you actually believe consciousness is nothing more than a game that can be won so idk why you would care about free will to begin with).

>>35536213
Using truth to define the nature of truth will give you bullshit every time. You can't build a house on itself, you need a foundation.

>>35536009
Continuity of the self is an illusory heuristic your cognitive processes use in order to give you some semblance of sameness in your life so that you can actually function in the real world. There is actually no continuity of the self because that implies there is a self to begin with and you haven't defined what that self is.

Also if you believe there's continuity in your self then I guess you believe memories are fixed and experiences/emotions don't affect any of your ability to recall or create memories.

Also how come my nose is in my field of vision but most of the time I don't notice it's there?

>>35536211
Yeah but you actually need physiology in order to have those electrical impulses. Where do you think those impulses go? How do you think they're generated?

Btw you actually do need a butthole in order to think because without being able to digest and excrete nutrients you wouldn't be able to build any ATP in order to generate action potentials but alright.

>>35536256
The foundation is literally logic. Unless you believe that logic isn't used in mathematics and science then I guess you're denying the existence of every proof that has ever existed.

That's just willful ignorance, dude.

>>35536297
>Where do you think those impulses go? How do you think they're generated?
computers generate electric impulses

>digest and excrete nutrients you wouldn't be able to build any ATP in order to generate action potentials
not if those electric impulses are generated in a computer. you dont really have to feed apples to your computer in order for it to process information with electric impulses.

>>35536331
Logic's foundation is logic? How does that work?

>>35535816
Without even reading about it, plenty of people think we'll make god. The singularity. After all, what made the universe? Maybe we make ourselves, and the world IS shit, so the god bot would be prolly mean. I don't have to read silly shit to be bothered by that, as it is, it already happened, or I'd never have suffered.

>>35536332
Remember how computers are only able to generate electrical impulses because organic matter is burned to generate heat and do work (unless you're using nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, or whatever).

Also we're talking specifically about consciousness which as we know it is an emergent property of living organisms so if you can't even tell me how consciousness is able to be generated, or quite frankly even explained, organically then I seriously doubt you're able to tell me how consciousness is generated, or explained, in a non living thing like a computer.

>>35536356
Wow what is this reductionist reasoning tell me what explains mathematics, homie?

>>35536412
Someone made some shit up and it works well enough. You can't explain the foundation because it's ultimately bullshit.

>>35536401
>if you can't even tell me how consciousness is able to be generated, or quite frankly even explained, organically
why is this such a meme? of course, we dont know the details of how consciousness works, but in the end its all a bunch of electrical impulses in the brain. there's no supernatural side to it. it's just that we don't know how a lot of the details of how these electric impulses interact with one another.

>>35536425
Wow yeah mathematics is super made up that's why it explains everything so well right? Btw it mathematics only works well enough then you aren't even able to perfectly simulate a universe so this entire Roko's Basilisk isn't even possible.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Btw what is a taylor series?

>>35536469
Who gives a shit you fucking nerd

>>35536450
If you don't know how it works then how can you replicate? I didn't even say or imply it was supernatural.

>>35536481
Cool you have no idea what you're talking about how is that life as a high school drop out treating you?

Btw everyone please read my responses and never make this thread again.

>>35536037
Yes, I know the objection to Pascal's wager. I suppose the argument against it is that we're much more likely to bring the pro-human than the anti-human AI into existence.
In other words, if 200 (equally likely to be true) religions doom you to hell for eating pork and one dooms you for not eating it, you'd better avoid it.

>>35536264
Illusory in relation to what? It's a contingent artifact of my evolved brain, certainly, but it's an "illusion" I cherish and want to do everything to protect. From what standpoint can you argue against it?

>I guess you believe memories are fixed (...)
No, I'm aware of cognitive biases and the fallibility of memory and all that. I don't see how any of this follows; I don't need to believe that I have perfect perception and recall to value the perception and recall I do have.

>>35536492
>then how can you replicate?
dam niga im not the basilisk. im just arguing that consciousness can probably be replicated with the right technology.

>wanting to simulate human consciousness

Roko's cuckold is more like it

>>35536401
We have very interesting models of the building blocks of consciousness already. See, for instance, Gary Drescher's "Good And Real". That's if you actually give a shit and don't just want to fetishize organic matter like it's the elan vital.

>>35536511
Yeah you can value what you have but that doesn't mean that it's static.

If you agree that cognitive biases exist and that memory is fallible then I don't know what the self is other than an experience in a single point in time that is not tied to any other point in time by anything concrete. Guess you could measure it in terms of an infinite series of experiences in different points in time and call the sum of that collective experience your self but I don't believe that's what people usually mean when they refer to their self.

Naw I mean?

>>35535630
I worked out an informal proof of why roko's basilisk is flawed, but that was like 2 months ago and I don't remember it in full...

The main reason why it is flawed is it assumes a certain type of sentient super AI will exist without any evidence and you have to conform to this AI's extremely rigid thought processes citing it supposedly ending human suffering as the justification. It's possible the inverse of this AI would exist, and it tortures humans who contribute to its existence because some kind of event can be attributed to its early form where huge loss of human life and great amounts of suffering occurred (sort of like a combination of Skynet and the Matrix's AI). This would be misguided retribution in the same way roko's basilisk seeks retribution for not contributing to its existence.

File: 0758_-_ONhLzZi.jpg (5KB, 200x193px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x193px

>>35535630
you're saved by my meta basilisk

if the basilisk comes to fruition and it wastes its time simulating people who are long dead and torturing them, which would take huge amounts of memory / other resources, a meta AI which the basilisk could have helped create will punish the basilisk

hence the basilisk will not torture you!

pic related how I start to feel about these clever thought experiments

>>35536600
>that is not tied to any other point in time by anything concrete
But it is - namely, by cause and effect. Time flows in one direction, and external happenings leave marks on my body and brain... I mean, I don't really know what to say. A series of experiences in time is right, like the ship of Theseus. You don't think most people would agree with this view?

>>35536585
Wow a bunch of philosophy written 10 years ago is supposed to be held up as the latest model of consciousness?

How bout some:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14817

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433

>>35536767
looks good my man
where do you know this stuff from?

>>35535630
It's just another version of Pascal's Wager.

You have no idea of what you are doing right now is working for or against the desires of the Basilisk. Therefore it doesn't matter what you do. Therefore there is nothing to worry about.

easy peazy lemon squeezy roko's basilisk is dead

>>35536865
Not all omnipotent AIs are equally likely.

>>35536754
Time doesn't even flow it's just another dimension in space. It's another illusion of existence. That's why special relativity can show how time is not the same for every observer.

You don't even have to understand Einstein's equations to see that time is a dimensional illusion. If you just look at Newtonian physics you could say the height you shoot a cannonball from a cannon sitting on top of a hill is a function of time. The height of the cannonball changes over time but so does the distance.

Okay but you can also look at the height as a function of distance traveled because as the cannon ball travels a distance the force of gravity will change it's height relative to the observer, right? So why isn't distance something that flows and time is? Is it because of our experience of time or is it because time is something that objectively flows? Well I would refer you to Einstein's equations for special relativity if you wanted to know.

>>35536861
I'm a neuroscience student at university.

>>35536881
your language suggests you need to think a little more

>>35536887
Be that as it may, we experience it sequentially. Calling it an "illusion" is essentially meaningless and inflammatory.

>>35536910
i'm glad you've solved Pascal's Mugging, publish a paper

>>35536946
I would argue you don't experience it sequentially because it doesn't flow. The reason I'm saying it's an illusion isn't to be inflammatory but because I believe our experiences, or selves, at any moment in time are just the current configurations of whatever external influences are affecting us. And because time doesn't flow and there is no collective summation of these experiences at any time that the self is a deception.

Because time doesn't flow and because experience isn't collective the self doesn't actually exist. It's just an experience.

Btw we should argue that since we can experience or even imagine the ideal of a self and since thoughts and ideas are able to be represented mathematically and because mathematics is something that exists that any thought or imagination or experience exists objectively outside of the user cause that's more interesting imo.

>>35535630

always the same bullshit in this AI circlejerk

>infinitely wise AI cares about human ideas, values
>on a planet where humans only care about animals when they need to take some selfies

>>35537097
>that's more interesting imo
Hell yeah, that's Greg Egan's Dust Theory. Read Permutation City if you haven't, you'll love it.

>>35537142
>Permutation City
Apparently I've already looked at it before but don't remember wow. Also I thought I was unique but I guess not.

Thanks brah!

File: FACKLERRR.png (217KB, 601x345px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 601x345px

HOLY SHIT GUYS!!!

I just saved us all from Roko's Basilisk

I call it Fackler's Intention

An individual being "blackmailed" by the basilisk puts all of their efforts, or an agreeable minimum, into development of AI. The only problem is, this person is a complete fuck-up and actually hinders the development. This is based on the character of Officer Fackler from the Police Academy films. Despite having the best of intentions, he screws things up.

Since the retrocausal punishment could motivate someone to help, and this person's nature would hinder AI, the future AI has no way of knowing if the threat would help or hurt, therefore has no incentive to torture.

It's actually in this machines best interest to deter Facklers. Maybe a retrocausal reward, I dunno

File: 1488517633172.jpg (122KB, 1278x1181px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1278x1181px

>Cousin reta translated part of roko's basilisk

>>35538124
the basilisk would have the ability to accurately simulate your consciousness and could reasonably deduct whether you would in fact be a fuck up and hinder it or not

end result is, if you're not and succeed in life, you're going to be punished by it

if not, it leaves you in peace to lead your fucked up life in the present

consider yourself saved

File: 0HehnJB.jpg (128KB, 345x1280px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 345x1280px

No need to thank me, boys.

>>35535813

do you like MDE my friendo-robot-o?

>>35538200
very funny, but that's not how it works. The blackmail, unless I'm not up on my LessWrong faggotry, exists solely to motivate. But those cyber cultists seemed to glare over the fact that not everyone's "contributions" are welcome. The AI isn't making a list and checking in twice, it could never have enough information to do so. It's gonna fuck up random people just to make good on the threat. But if the threat itself hinders it's production, in takes away from the greater good

A utilitarian AI god would kinda wanna not take away from the greater good

>>35538319
>in takes away from the greater good
*it takes away from the greater good, fuck

and by "greater good" I mean whatever it deems the most painless way to bring us into Cyber Utopia whatever land with the least amount of dust specks in our ass or whatever

>>35538319
>>35538364

okay yes you're right, the question for the ai is whether it thinks making the threat would in fact lead to enough constructive behaviour to help it

since this is not at all as easily handwaveable by saying that obviously it would be so, as is done usually by saying that not all AIs are equally likely etc

File: Screenshot_45.jpg (18KB, 291x324px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 291x324px

>>35538888
it boils down to a simple axiom: Blackmail is normally not undertaken without a positive result for the blackmailer

now scale that bitch up to anally altruistic blackmail, and it would never be worth the risk. Not for a machine that cares about each nanosecond taken before it was fired up

unless it crunches the numbers and considers fuck-ups an acceptable risk. Shit, I was wrong

BACK TO THE PILE!!!