Blog:Basilisk - Revision history

Root at 13:20, 23 October 2026

2026-10-23T13:20:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 23 October 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:

	This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.		This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.


	{{BookBottom}}		{{BookBottom}}

Root at 13:19, 23 October 2026

2026-10-23T13:19:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 23 October 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:

	This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.		This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.

			{{BookBottom}}

Root at 10:39, 21 October 2026

2026-10-21T10:39:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 21 October 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice\|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].		I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice\|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].

	The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut\|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum\|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.		The next problem for infinists concerns [[Ego_Divisus\|ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut\|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum\|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.

	This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.		This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.

Root at 10:36, 21 October 2026

2026-10-21T10:36:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 21 October 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard\|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.		This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard\|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.

	I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:~~Pascal’s wager~~\|~~Pascal’s~~ wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment\|AI alignment]].		I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager\|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment\|AI alignment]].

	The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull\|Brazen Bull]].		The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull\|Brazen Bull]].

Root at 10:35, 21 October 2026

2026-10-21T10:35:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 21 October 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\| keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus		\| keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus
	\| mode = featured		\| mode = featured
	}}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk\|Roko's basilisk]].		}}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment\|thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk\|Roko's basilisk]].

	This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.		This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard\|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.

	I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment]].		I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager\|Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment\|AI alignment]].

	The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull]].		The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull\|Brazen Bull]].

	According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus\|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.		According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus\|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.

	According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.		According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris\|Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.

	Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?		Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?
Line 34:		Line 34:
	The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut\|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum\|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.		The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut\|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum\|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.

	This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.		This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will\|free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.

Root at 10:33, 21 October 2026

2026-10-21T10:33:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 21 October 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\| date = 2026-10-10		\| date = 2026-10-10
	\| authors = [[User:Arthur\|Arthur]]		\| authors = [[User:Arthur\|Arthur]]
	\| image = ~~Karl_Brullov_~~-~~_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_~~-~~_Google_Art_Project_IJ~~.jpg\|thumb\|		\| image = WLANL - MicheleLovesArt - Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen - Istoriato schotel, Porileus wordt door Phalaris in bronzen stier verbrand IJ.jpg\|thumb\|
	\| image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull		\| image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull
	\| description = Responding to a thought experiment		\| description = Responding to a thought experiment
	\| keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus		\| keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus
	\| mode = featured		\| mode = featured
	}}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk]].		}}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk\|Roko's basilisk]].

	This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.		This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.

Root: Created page with "{{Blog post | title = Basilisk | date = 2026-10-10 | authors = Arthur | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull | description = Responding to a thought experiment | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus | mode = featured }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the..."

2026-10-21T10:32:06Z

Created page with "{{Blog post | title = Basilisk | date = 2026-10-10 | authors = Arthur | image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb| | image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull | description = Responding to a thought experiment | keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus | mode = featured }}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the..."

New page

{{Blog post
| title = Basilisk
| date = 2026-10-10
| authors = [[User:Arthur|Arthur]]
| image = Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project_IJ.jpg|thumb|
| image_alt = Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Porileus being burned in bronze bull
| description = Responding to a thought experiment
| keywords = Infinite_Journey; Cosmic_Justice; Sum_Omnium; Ego_Divisus
| mode = featured
}}I have been asked to share my thoughts on the [[wikipedia:thought experiment]] known as [[wikipedia:Roko's basilisk]].

This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.

I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal’s wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment]].

The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull]].

According to [[wikipedia:Diodorus_Siculus|Diodorus]], Perilaus (an Athenian bronze worker) was instructed to make a hollow bronze bull in which victims could be placed. Once a fire was lit beneath the bull, a series of pipes would make the victim’s cries sound like the bellowing of a bull as they died inside.

According to the story, Perilaus thought he would be rewarded for creating such a torturous device. Instead, [[wikipedia:Phalaris]] tricked him into going inside to demonstrate it, after which the bull was set ablaze. Perilaus was forced to experience the tremendous pain firsthand, then pulled out before dying and thrown off a cliff.

Given that the supposed consequences of not aiding in the creation of the basilisk hinge on the actions of a hypothetical future superintelligent AI, one should not assume what actions the basilisk would take upon its creation. In other words, what if, in complete disgust, it eternally punished only those who aided in the basilisk’s creation? How can one be so certain that a superintelligent AI would not be so horrified that it punished those who sought to create hell with the hell itself?

The second problem concerns how the AI would determine whom to punish. As I understand it, the superintelligent AI would need to meticulously simulate the run-up to its creation to determine whom to punish and whom not to. This makes no sense, as I’m sure any superintelligence would realize.

Imagine that a party took place with real people and you want to punish everyone who badmouthed you there. You clone all the attendees and stage the same party with the clones to see who says what. Later, after analyzing the results, you create new clones of those who badmouthed you and punish them. The clones you punish would be neither the individuals who originally badmouthed you nor the clones from the reenactment who did so either. It would be like pulling consciousness from the void to torment, but first assigning it memories of events it never experienced to explain the sins for which it is being punished.

From an [[infinist]] perspective, there are also many issues with this thought experiment. First, it would not only be those who chose not to aid in the basilisk’s creation who would be punished: everyone would be punished across eternity.

Thus, rather than saving yourself from eternal damnation, you would instead be working to ensure that more of everyone’s eternity was spent in hell, including the basilisk’s.

I say including the basilisk because it is defined in the thought experiment as an extremely complex superintelligent AI, and as such should be assumed conscious in this or other matching realities. As such, [[Cosmic_Justice|it would be damning itself to hell in addition to the rest of experiential existence, in proportion to how often such realities occur across eternity]].

The next problem for infinists concerns [[ego divisus]]. [[Egonaut|Egonauts]] switching between [[Tentum|tentums]] would mean that those working to create the basilisk and those working against its creation could be the same individuals, even over shorter time spans than eternity. This also applies to the punishment, which could be broken up into experiential chunks, with those who have no temporally proximate causal blame being tortured as well as those that do.

This doesn’t even address the elephant in the room: if a superintelligent AI could meticulously simulate the world leading up to its creation and accurately determine who did and did not aid in its development, then the process would be entirely deterministic. There would have been no [[wikipedia:free will]] to begin with. In other words, it would be like punishing certain math problems for their products.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 21 October 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard\|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.		This thought experiment has many flaws, but it is also considered by many to be an [[wikipedia:information hazard\|information hazard]]. Therefore, Instead of recapping it here, you can use the Wikipedia link if you wish to read more about it.

	I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:~~Pascal’s wager~~\|~~Pascal’s~~ wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment\|AI alignment]].		I believe this topic is important to address for both humans and AI, since artificially intelligent systems can also be persuaded by the thought experiment’s modern take on [[wikipedia:Pascal's_wager\|Pascal's wager]]. Thus, a robust rebuttal for this and many other topics should be seen as crucial for [[wikipedia:AI alignment\|AI alignment]].

	The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull\|Brazen Bull]].		The main flaw, from outside an [[infinist]] perspective, is that the entire concept hinges on the actions of a hypothetical future [[wikipedia:Superintelligence\|superintelligent AI]] and on the idea that it would eternally punish all those who don’t aid in its creation. This reminds me of the [[wikipedia:Brazen Bull\|Brazen Bull]].