Post: #1

Anyone familar with this?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

It is pretty fucked up. It is a funny thought experiment - but the link above is a bit confusing.

I just wanted to see if anyone else here had ever come across it?

This is my take on it.

First of all - there was an old joke called 'The Game'.

The game is stupid and simple.

The rule was that everytime you thought about 'The Game' you lost a point.

And the goal was to get to the end of each day without ever thinking about 'The Game'. So by even writing this - I am losing against my brother who first introduced me to this stupid meta-game, and who has (one assumes) spent the entire day not thinking about 'The Game' and by doing so has beaten me for today.

And by reading this - you will all (by definition) be participants in this 'game' for the rest of your lives. And everytime you think about it - you will be losing. Except when you die - in which case you will probably spend forever winning 'the game'.

It is a stupid game. But it has a certain elegance to its structure due to its recursive quality.

Anyway...

Roko's basilisk seems to have a similar quality. I recently saw a reference to it in one of the comments on the marginalrevolution.com blog.

Anyway - first of all - I would be interested to know the history behind the name?

And secondly - it seems that this 'concept' is banned from even being mentioned on alot of computer science forums. Since some nerds take the concept so seriously that they are genuinely scared of it...

Indeed - by even continuting to read this post you may be condemning yourself to an eternity in Hell. You have being warned...

Let me explain...

At some point - we may reach the technological singularity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

At some point Humanity will invent an intelligence which is even more intelligent than humans.

And when that happens - that intelligence will create an intelligent entity even more intelligent than itself. And that intelligent entity will create one even more intelligent that itself.

In quick succession - there will be an exponential increase in intelligence created by a chain reaction sparked by the first Advanced Artifical Intelligence which is invented by humans.

That is the idea.

And soon after this occurs - some believe that a 'God' like intelligence will come into existence which will be indistinguishable to us from God. The character of 'Q' on Star Trek might be a good analogy to this.

And - getting back to Roko's basilisk it seems that such a God will punish those who did not help him come into existence. And not only that - being a rational God - he will punish those who were aware of the concept of the technological singularity and the concept of Roko's basilisk which says that those who are aware of this possibility will be punished more than those who were never even aware of it.

Which means - by reading this far - you are already condemned to an eternity in Hell.

Sorry about that.

Unless you devote the rest of your lives to trying to breach the technological singularity and thus help bring into existence the super-intelligence which will one day be our 'God'.

I dunno' - the whole thing is fucked up. And totally new to me. I wouldn't be surprised if I have messed up some details along the way.

But I enjoy unusual gedanken. And was just hoping somebody else might be familiar with this meme?

Post: #2

Nerd-o-meter going to 11, man the lifeboats.

Never heard of it, see you in the eternal torture chamber (assuming this being will figure out a way to keep us alive and tortured forever).

Post: #3

Interesting concept, but why would such a god even care about who helped him come into existence and who didn't? Not really worried about the eternal hell but cool theory nonetheless.

Post: #4

It's scary that people who promote such ideas are around us. Even more scary then femdom fetishists perhaps.

Post: #5

(07-03-2013 10:08 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  Interesting concept, but why would such a god even care about who helped him come into existence and who didn't? Not really worried about the eternal hell but cool theory nonetheless.

It is a dumb theory, no different than the idea that if you don't repent and convert to Christianity, then you will suffer in Hell for eternity.

If the "singularity" is even possible, then the entity created at that time of singularity will probably have no other interest or moral purpose other than to expand its knowledge of the universe through experiment and discovery. Assuming that it will have "human" emotions or even care about revenge is childish.

Post: #6

(07-03-2013 11:41 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 10:08 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  Interesting concept, but why would such a god even care about who helped him come into existence and who didn't? Not really worried about the eternal hell but cool theory nonetheless.

It is a dumb theory, no different than the idea that if you don't repent and convert to Christianity, then you will suffer in Hell for eternity.

If the "singularity" is even possible, then the entity created at that time of singularity will probably have no other interest or moral purpose other than to expand its knowledge of the universe through experiment and discovery. Assuming that it will have "human" emotions or even care about revenge is childish.

Thus my nerd comment. Typical nerd projection onto all the people they feel have "done them wrong" growing up.. But I am smarter than you and one day!

Yea.. no.

Post: #7

At this point, I'd like to take a second to remind you that computers don't have the physical capability to do much more than compute. No matter how "intelligent" a program is, it can't suddenly cause a computer to do things outside of the physical realm of possibility. Although there is a possibility of the computer remotely controlling machines via the internet, there are currently no machines in existance that might serve the purpose of "creating a machine capable of creating smarter machines." The resources simply don't exist. No matter how smart a computer might be, you turn the power off and it stops being smart. Even if the computer were indeed smart enough to come up with the technology for such a task, it's going to need us to build it. I'd like to believe the people smart enough to do that aren't quite that stupid...

Post: #8

(07-04-2013 12:36 AM)Architekt Wrote:  Even if the computer were indeed smart enough to come up with the technology for such a task, it's going to need us to build it. I'd like to believe the people smart enough to do that aren't quite that stupid...

I think that it's inevitable. Eventually things will become so complex that humans won't be capable of designing and building them at a base level.

People can hand-solder SMD components, but no human can hand-assemble a modern silicon chip, and software is increasingly used in the design of them.

Now, do I think that computers will become self-aware? Not for a long time, if ever. I do think that they will become significantly better at appearing self-aware, but for now Siri isn't really much smarter than Eliza.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #9

(07-04-2013 03:38 AM)crippler Wrote:  

(07-04-2013 12:36 AM)Architekt Wrote:  Even if the computer were indeed smart enough to come up with the technology for such a task, it's going to need us to build it. I'd like to believe the people smart enough to do that aren't quite that stupid...

I think that it's inevitable. Eventually things will become so complex that humans won't be capable of designing and building them at a base level.

People can hand-solder SMD components, but no human can hand-assemble a modern silicon chip, and software is increasingly used in the design of them.

Now, do I think that computers will become self-aware? Not for a long time, if ever. I do think that they will become significantly better at appearing self-aware, but for now Siri isn't really much smarter than Eliza.

We use robots to construct the chips we currently have. Those robots are capable of producing chips - not much else. The machine that created the quantum computer I linked to in some other thread is much more likely capable of this task, but it still lacks the capability of obtaining the required resources itself, and of using those to create anything other than... More of the same computer. The fact that it is powered by electricity and the computer itself requires near absolute 0 temperatures are also limiting factors..

Post: #10

It would make an interesting psychological horror movie. Like a word that once it has been spoken, read or heard kills the word's consumer.

How do you fight against an idea? is one of the classic philosophical problems.

Post: #11

The psychological basis of all of this crap is basically the computer nerd version of the screwball redneck doomsday prepper hoarding toilet paper for when the liberals try to build their giant Stalin-shaped robot to take over the world.

Just like the conservative doomsayers are marginalized in modern society, the nerds are also marginalized. All of the dweeb MGTOW omegas we talk about on this forum are predominantly of the nerd mentality where their sexual frustration is only released through World of Warcraft cybersex, and as much as the players on this forum like to complain about women being mean, realize that for these guys stuff like shit-testing and divorce fucking don't even happen, these guys are truly transparent to women.

And here's the thing that happens when a person is a loser: they come up with a magical fantasy prediction of the future in which the march of history somehow solves all their problems. If you're a nerd, that means your mind will get uploaded into a supercomputer and plop you into a matrix in which you can simulate all the power fantasies denied you in real life. If you're a hillbilly, you fantasize that society will collapse and you'll get to rebuild society with your trusty shotgun to fend off the homoerotically dressed raider gangs. Even the nutty radical feminists from the 70s wrote about fantasy futures in which men were eliminated so they could wear flannel and fist each other in a utopian society.

Psychological security blanket fantasies like these are easy enough to spot if you can look at the situation realistically to see what the actual likelihood of such a future would be.

Post: #12

(07-04-2013 05:47 AM)Architekt Wrote:  We use robots to construct the chips we currently have. Those robots are capable of producing chips - not much else. The machine that created the quantum computer I linked to in some other thread is much more likely capable of this task, but it still lacks the capability of obtaining the required resources itself, and of using those to create anything other than... More of the same computer. The fact that it is powered by electricity and the computer itself requires near absolute 0 temperatures are also limiting factors..

We already have fly-by-wire and drive-by-wire, I doubt there's a hard switch to turn off a nuclear reactor either. I just think the chances of a malicious artificial intelligence arising are vanishingly small. Any malicious activity will be human-driven.

There's a talk at this year's Defcon about remotely overriding driver commands in cars via the embedded systems - imagine the engine going flat out, power steering hard right, brakes locked on that side. Could a computer do that? Yes. Could a computer invent that as an attack vector without human suggestion? I really doubt it.

(07-04-2013 11:52 AM)Captain Caveman Wrote:  It would make an interesting psychological horror movie. Like a word that once it has been spoken, read or heard kills the word's consumer.

How do you fight against an idea? is one of the classic philosophical problems.

There's something similar in the book Lullaby, by Chuck Pahlaniuk. It's a song that makes people die if you sing it while thinking about them. Even if you don't do it out loud. The main character loses control and starts accidentally killing people who briefly annoy him, the song flashes through his head as a 'what if' scenario.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #13

I never really watched Star Trek: The Next Generation when it was on the air. But I did remember loving the episodes involving 'Q'.

Anyway - I decided to look up some of those episodes. One of the best is called 'Tapestry'. And not only does the episode star 'Q' (one of the all-time great TV characters) but it offers a very poignant and moving philosophical take on life.

The episode follows one of the classic tropes of Sci-Fi. Where a character dies - but gets to go back in time and change the past - to prevent his death.

The lesson it teaches is quite a 'Red Pill' one - so to speak. It is the sort of message that really sticks with you.

Also - long before the internet became huge - 'Q' was the original - and best - troll!

Post: #14

Robocalypse might be a good read for some of you.

Yes, on star trek, carguy. Q was a master troll.

The most "red pill" star trek in my view is "DEEP SPACE NINE".

the second in command was a terrorist.

the captain sisko was willing to cohort with seedy, shady characters to ruthlessly get the job done. He was willing to bribe. Order assassinations. Accessories to murder. Potential genocide. Kill innocent high ranking people to trick the romulans into war against the dominions to save the federations. and the list goes on.....and on...

We also have section 31. An utterly ruthless federation organization that doesnt give a fuck about the liberal beliefs of the federation to get his job done. Made their appearance in DS9.

Sisko's wife was a terrorist/drug runner.

His bonding with his son was utterly devoid of any emasculating female.

My favourite episode of DS9 was "in the pale moonlight". Season 6, episode 19.

The star trek i dislike the most: VOYAGER and enterprise.