[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 233x240, memetic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5567130 No.5567130 [Reply] [Original]

Can we talk about Roko's Basilisk?

>> No.5567142

The claim is that this ultimate intelligence may punish those who fail to help it (or help create it), with greater punishment accorded those who knew the importance of the task. That bit is simple enough, but the weird bit is that the AI and the person punished have NO causal interaction: the punishment would be of a simulation of the person, which the AI would construct by deduction from first principles. In the Timeless Decision Theory (TDT), this is taken to be equivalent to punishment of your own actual self, not just someone else very like you — because you might be the simulation.

Roko's basilisk is notable for being completely banned from discussion on some forums, where any mention of it is deleted. A founder of one of these sites considers the basilisk would not work, but will not explain why because he does not consider open discussion of the notion of acausal trade with possible superintelligences to be provably safe.

Some people familiar with it have suffered serious psychological distress after contemplating basilisk-like ideas — even when they're fairly sure intellectually that it's a silly problem. The notion is taken sufficiently seriously by some posters that they try to work out how to erase evidence of themselves so a future AI can't reconstruct a copy of them to torture.

Thanks to the Streisand effect, discussion of the basilisk and the details of the affair soon spread outside of these forums. The entire affair is a worked example of spectacular failure at community management and at controlling purportedly dangerous information.

>> No.5567255

so can we talk about it or what?

>> No.5567265

>>5567255
I would like to.

>> No.5567267

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

>> No.5567280

>Implying I would care about someone torturing my clone

Doesn't seem very perplexing to me.

>> No.5567286

>>5567280
As far as I can see, it analyzes your "clone" in a simulated universe, then recreates the objects in your path in this one, that is, you, the you that is now, of the past, of which the AI is the future, so that once you know about it and fail to do what you can to further its' development, you are hindered both throughout life and tortured afterwards for failing to help it come into existence faster.

>> No.5567287

>>5567255

so i delved into this shit. all the way to visiting the leswrong blog and its affiliates such as intellgence.org which isn't even a site.

basically it's a load of pseudointellectual philososhit that has no genuine application or relevance, in the humble opinion of an actual information scientist.

the astounding amount of samefaggottry (as evident by dead affiliates and repropagation of identical data) does nothing to validate their credibility, and rather further indicates that their drivel is nothing but the pounding of heavy words with little meaning.

in abstract conclusio:
>your attempt to force a meme has been denied.

-sage

>> No.5567288

>>5567280

I think it also attempts to delve into the "if it's an exact copy of you, it is you consciously" kind of idea. So even in death, when it reanimates a clone of you to exact detail, you will experience everything as if you're alive again. Something like that, not sure.

>> No.5567303

>>5567130
Without even going into whether you should care about your clone, their notion of "acausal trade" seems very suspicious.

It goes against what economists call "subgame perfect equilibrium", which is the idea that the future intelligence has no reason to follow through with its threat.

>> No.5567320

>>5567303
Also Timess Decision Theory seems to be crap.

But since these guys write reams of crap, I can't critique all of it, only what I read so far.

The problem with TDT is that it is simultaneously assuming that you can choose to do one thing or another, and that your actions can be perfectly predicted.

>> No.5567322

>>5567288
But if this were true, it would violate the principle of identity.

Identity is not just in the arrangement of matter, it is also in the position of that matter in spacetime.

If the arrangement of matter forming my brain were to be reproduced in another location in spacetime, you wouldn't expect me to experience what it experienced any more than you would expect two identically arranged rocks to both break when you hit only one of them with a hammer.

The discussion is over at this point unless you want to invoke time travel, but then you're just speculating on something we understand almost nothing about.

>> No.5567330

>>5567322
Actually, our universe is too small, but were it bigger, there would eventually come a time when an exact duplicate you would be created, along with a duplicate Earth, solar system, etc.

>> No.5567336

>>5567330
>there would eventually come a time when an exact duplicate you would be created

But it would be in a different position in spacetime and, therefore, not identical.

Read my post.

>> No.5567355

>>5567336
The position in spacetime would be irrelevant, with enough room, an exact you with the exact same neurochemical makeup would make the exact same decisions you make today. It would be as if the universe was a tesselating image, for lack of a better description. While you are correct that spacetime would be different, it would not be different in any sense that mattered to you being you, whether you're here or in a duplicated universe, because it's an exact duplicate recreation.

>> No.5567360

>>5567322

That's why I found it to be a serious problem. If it were true it would violate identity, locality and relativity; as it would allow information that can sent/received by all elementary particles instantaneously regardless of distance.

So it's safe to say it can't happen. This is also why I would never use a teleporter like those portrayed in science fiction.

>> No.5567375

>>5567355
You still aren't getting it.

You are right from the standpoint of a third person, you are wrong from the standpoint of the first person. An observing third party would not be able to determine which rock had been broken so, from their point of view, it would make no difference...but that doesn't change the fact that only one rock was affected by the hammer. I don't care if it's two people side by side at the same time or two people separated by billions of years on the other side of the universe, the principle still applies.

>> No.5567385

>>5567375
But wouldn't both rocks be both hit with hammers, both in the same spot, both crack the same way? If this is a 'tesselated' universe.

>> No.5567412

>>5567385
If you want to make up a universe in which both rocks would be broken in order to prove yourself theoretically correct then go right ahead.

As long as we can both agree that we don't live in that universe, I'm happy.

>> No.5567419

All of this is kinda of cool... until you consider that more than half of our neurochemical makeup is formed from social and environmental influences. Neuorplasticity and what not. Not only would they have to have your exact genetic makeup, but they would have to make the same actions, associations, and learn the same information as you. Not probable, especially when you consider the likelihood of the pure amount of neurons and glial cells coming into the same formation twice. Those chances alone certainly rival the amount of stars in the observable universe.

>> No.5567428

>>5567355
Sorry, just saw your post. But your idea that your original genetic makeup influences you more than your environment almost suggests predetermination.

>> No.5567470

>>5567142
So, 'God is a Dick: As Written by Atheists'

>> No.5567499
File: 113 KB, 490x700, the parrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5567499

>> No.5567501

>>5567428
Some genes are activated to differing effects according to environmental factors, research shows.

>your nature is to be nurtured

>> No.5567503

>>5567412
If you reproduce a wave-form exactly, it is the same wave, regardless of the matter composing it, so long as the wave-form propagates in the same manner once set loose.

>> No.5567516

>>5567499
that picture made me vomit in my mouth.. wtf

>> No.5568492

Sounds like pseudoscience bullshit. Why would you even think about shit like that? It's not healthy.
Polite sage.