• blakestacey@awful.systemsM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s not worth explaining because it’s stupid, but Roko’s conclusion was

    (jazzy finger-snaps of approval)

    • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Let’s see if I still remember how ol’ Basilisk works:

      AI researchers could feel compelled to create an AI that thinks mean thoughts about anyone who isn’t nice to it. Because they’re not sure if they’re in reality or in one of the AIs mean thoughts (edit: or if the AI may someday think mean thoughts about them even if they aren’t). Then throw in 100k words of fluff with fake statistics and fancy words like “acasual” to befuddle weird nerds into buying the argument.

      Oh yeah that is too stupid to explain. It’s the ontological argument for Christian God, but on crack.

      1. God Basilisk is that being than which no greater can be conceived.
      2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
      3. If God Basilisk does not exist, we can conceive of acasual blackmail our way to an even greater being, that is one that does exist.
      4. Therefore, God Basilisk must indeed exist in reality.