1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Nov '14 06:51
    An interesting twist on Pascals Wager:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

    Basically, some future advanced AI may decide to punish all those that didn't assist in bringing about its existence. So it is in your best interests to donate money towards AI development 'just in case'. Note that just reading this post has made you more culpable of failing to assist and thus increasing your risk of punishment.

    I found out about it via:
    http://xkcd.com/1450/
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86369
    23 Nov '14 09:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    An interesting twist on Pascals Wager:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

    Basically, some future advanced AI may decide to punish all those that didn't assist in bringing about its existence. So it is in your best interests to donate money towards AI development 'just in case'. Note that just reading this post has made you more culpable of f ...[text shortened]... and thus increasing your risk of punishment.

    I found out about it via:
    http://xkcd.com/1450/
    Interesting. Of course a completely rational AI would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims.

    I also quite enjoyed the bitching between the two weblogs as a side issue.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Nov '14 12:35
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Interesting. Of course a completely rational AI would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims.
    So can we conclude from that that God is not completely rational, or doesn't punish either?
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86369
    23 Nov '14 12:39
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So can we conclude from that that God is not completely rational, or doesn't punish either?
    Conclude from the model, or conclude from what I posted?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Nov '14 13:11
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Conclude from the model, or conclude from what I posted?
    Conclude from what you posted.
    ...a completely rational AI would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims.

    Can we also say:
    A completely rational intelligence of any sort would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims. Or did your statement only apply to artificial intelligence, and if so, why?
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86369
    23 Nov '14 17:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Conclude from what you posted.
    ...a completely rational AI would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims.

    Can we also say:
    A completely rational intelligence of any sort would not take an emotional response like punishment as a route to achieve it's aims. Or did your statement only apply to artificial intelligence, and if so, why?
    The bible at times talks about God's punishment but it's an area I don't understand the point of the term outside of the framework of loving discipline. Punishment then is better explained as consequences which help discipline behaviour and thinking. Unless an AI had the ability to make emotional responses then I would assume all it's actions would be rational. However despite the rationality, it does not necessarily follow that those decisions are correct.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Nov '14 18:24
    Originally posted by divegeester
    The bible at times talks about God's punishment but it's an area I don't understand the point of the term outside of the framework of loving discipline. Punishment then is better explained as consequences which help discipline behaviour and thinking.
    Please be a bit clearer. Does God not punish? Is God completely rational?

    Unless an AI had the ability to make emotional responses then I would assume all it's actions would be rational.
    I see no reason why an AI would not have emotional responses, and I also see no reason to assume that a non-emotional AI would always be rational.

    However despite the rationality, it does not necessarily follow that those decisions are correct.
    Agreed.
  8. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Nov '14 12:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    An interesting twist on Pascals Wager:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk

    Basically, some future advanced AI may decide to punish all those that didn't assist in bringing about its existence. So it is in your best interests to donate money towards AI development 'just in case'. Note that just reading this post has made you more culpable of f ...[text shortened]... and thus increasing your risk of punishment.

    I found out about it via:
    http://xkcd.com/1450/
    Hilarious.

    I'm to fear being punished by an artificial intelligence for not assisting in bringing about its existence? Seriously?

    Sounds like more fun than debating in this forum to me. Perhaps a debate between this AI and those who refuse to assist it should be instituted. The loser is punished by the winner. The stakes could be made by a third party, and wagers placed. It would be like a high stakes futuristic gladiatorial fight between opponents.

    I see a Hollywood movie on the horizon!
  9. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    24 Nov '14 12:37
    Originally posted by josephw
    I'm to fear being punished by an artificial intelligence for not assisting in bringing about its existence? Seriously?
    It's a fun analogy of humans being punished for not believing in a vengeful supernatural being. 🙂
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Nov '14 12:39
    Originally posted by FMF
    It's a fun analogy of humans being punished for not believing in a vengeful supernatural being. 🙂
    Duh!
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86369
    24 Nov '14 12:431 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    Hilarious. I'm to fear being punished by an artificial intelligence for not assisting in bringing about its existence? Seriously?
    Considering the Christian parallel being promoted in this forum, yes, I'd say it was very serious.

    For example as a parallel: Do you agree with sonship who claims that the fear of a future eternal suffering in hell is a "valid reason for coming to Christ" now?
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86369
    24 Nov '14 12:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Please be a bit clearer. Does God not punish? Is God completely rational?

    [b]Unless an AI had the ability to make emotional responses then I would assume all it's actions would be rational.

    I see no reason why an AI would not have emotional responses, and I also see no reason to assume that a non-emotional AI would always be rational.

    Howeve ...[text shortened]... e the rationality, it does not necessarily follow that those decisions are correct.
    Agreed.[/b]
    I'm still thinking about this. The Bible says god does punish and is at times angry. I can't remember how linked the two are but they probably are indeed. Is a display of anger always irrational?? I don't know to be honest. But it's not the god I believe in. But what do I know, it seems I'm alone in much of my views on the Christian god.
  13. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Nov '14 12:59
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Considering the Christian parallel being promoted in this forum, yes, I'd say it was very serious.

    For example as a parallel: Do you agree with sonship who claims that the [b]fear
    of a future eternal suffering in hell is a "valid reason for coming to Christ" now?[/b]
    Some do, but I don't.

    That doesn't mean I don't believe that the Word of God doesn't teach that those who reject His Christ won't be punished.

    If fearing punishment is what it takes for some to turn to Christ for forgiveness of their sins and be saved, then so be it.

    I personally, on the other hand, didn't turn to God and His Christ as my saviour because I feared being punished.

    It's obtuse to suggest that one needs to fear God to be saved. To be saved one only needs to believe.

    Salvation, which brings eternal life, and everlasting punishment are mutually exclusive subjects.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Nov '14 13:02
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm still thinking about this. The Bible says god does punish and is at times angry. I can't remember how linked the two are but they probably are indeed. Is a display of anger always irrational?? I don't know to be honest. But it's not the god I believe in. But what do I know, it seems I'm alone in much of my views on the Christian god.
    Thanks for the honest answers.
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    24 Nov '14 13:161 edit
    Originally posted by josephw
    It's obtuse to suggest that one needs to fear God to be saved. To be saved one only needs to believe.
    Why do you say this to a poster who thinks it's obtuse to suggest that one needs to fear God to be saved rather than to the poster who makes what you see as the obtuse suggestion that one may need to be scared by God in order to believe and be saved? Are you unable to discern from what he says that divegeester thinks it's obtuse to suggest that one needs to fear God to be saved?
Back to Top