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

Today I Learned

18059 readers
353 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 2 years 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
[–] samus12345 16 points 5 months ago (5 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Most importantly, since there are infinite other options in-between that are just as likely as God existing, some can have negative reward values if you choose "worship God anyway". It is just as likely that there is a vengeful Anti-God that will torture you for eternity if you worship the Abrahamic God, which would completely negate the rewards from the original wager.

[–] samus12345 2 points 5 months ago

The "wager" that makes the most sense to me, then, is to behave as if there is no god that cares what you do or who you worship. Try your best to be a positive force in the world, because whether anything we do matters to the universe or not, it matters to us humans.

[–] JTskulk 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean he ruined a man's entire family to win a bet with someone he doesn't even like, being this oblivious is on-brand for God.

[–] samus12345 3 points 5 months ago

Very true - Old Testament god in particular was really dumb and didn't even know what was going on in the next town over.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 3 points 5 months ago

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?

More that repetition reinforces an idea. By commiting to the bit and accepting a God at face value, you reduce your psychological defenses when the priest or prophet comes around with the next ask.

So you admit you believe in God? Then you won't mind putting a few coins in the collection plate to prove it.

Oh, you've already donated? Surely you'd be comfortable making a confession.

My son, you've got so many sins! Surely you'd like to join our prayer group to get yourself right with the God we all agree exists.

Can't have prayer without works! Time to do some penance.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is also regarded as a simplified, derivative version of Pascal’s wager.

It was a response to this part.

[–] Cryophilia 3 points 5 months ago

Ah gotcha I somehow missed that part

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

His whole point though makes those other thousands irrelevant. Even if there's a chance, however small, you're still better off doing it just in case.

Here's my favorite variation of the same pragmatism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

But if he considered that, then he also would have considered not believing in anything was an equally probable bet for salvation. Which is clearly not the case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why is it equally probable to believe nothing? No atheist is preaching damnation if you believe in God lol.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Preaching of damnation is not evidence of damnation. There is just as likely a god who punishes you for believing anything wrong as there is a god who punishes you for not believing in them specifically.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Evidence was never part of his theory. Why are you using it as an argument?

He was not in the business of making up new possible religions. Only assessing the currently geographically popular ones.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You seem to not understand the discussion we're having.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

What a pathetic cop out response. I assure you I do, though I shouldn't have to.