Roko's basilisk

Originally posted by josephw
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.

I'm sorry, there are so many double negatives in this sentence(s) that I can't figure out what you are saying here. Could you clarify please?

I think you are saying the fear thing that sonship believes is wrong but rejection of Christ is punishable...?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm sorry, there are so many double negatives in this sentence(s) that I can't figure out what you are saying here. Could you clarify please?

I'd say there was one quadruple negative.

Originally posted by FMF
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?

What do you care? You don't believe anything anyone says to anyone about anything anyway. 😵

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm sorry, there are so many double negatives in this sentence(s) that I can't figure out what you are saying here. Could you clarify please?

I think you are saying the fear thing that sonship believes is wrong but rejection of Christ is punishable...?

"Does that mean not I do believe not that the Word of God does teach that not those who His reject Christ will be not punished."

No matter how many times I read it it doesn't make sense to me either. But what the hey! I've been on for over 16 hours my feet five with only hours of the sleep before night yesterday. 🙄

Originally posted by josephw
What do you care? You don't believe anything anyone says to anyone about anything anyway. 😵

Why do I care? Because I am a participant in the various discussions on this issue in this community and I find the apparent inability of many Christians here to tackle each other head-on quite interesting. You claiming, rather fatuously, that I "don't believe anything anyone says to anyone about anything anyway" is interesting in so far as it is offered ~ as is so often the case with you ~ instead of an answer to my on-topic observation/question. 🙂

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/

I'd found xkcd once before and then forgot about it. I was looking back through the xkcd site. This one is brilliant:

http://xkcd.com/1319/

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd found xkcd once before and then forgot about it. I was looking back through the xkcd site. This one is brilliant:

http://xkcd.com/1319/

It is certainly true for some tasks. A large part of my job is knowing when to automate and when to just go ahead and do things manually. (Or when to do a combination of the two). And sometimes I get it wrong.

Another issue with computers is that they tend to make us want to do more. So for example if you want to write a letter:
Old way: 20 minutes writing letter by hand or on a typewriter correcting with tippex etc.
New way: 5 minutes writing on a computer. 20 minutes formatting it, spell checking, printing, and otherwise trying to produce a work of art. 10 minutes playing solitaire.

Originally posted by josephw
Hilarious.

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

It is like an advanced "Prisoner's Dilemma"

If nobody participates in creating the AI we are all safe.

But if enough participate then those who don't suffer!

Originally posted by FMF
Why do I care? Because I am a participant in the various discussions on this issue in this community and I find the apparent inability of many Christians here to tackle each other head-on quite interesting. You claiming, rather fatuously, that I "don't believe anything anyone says to anyone about anything anyway" is interesting in so far as it is offered ~ as is ...[text shortened]... so often the case with you ~ instead of an answer to my on-topic observation/question. 🙂

"...I find the apparent inability of many Christians here to tackle each other head-on quite interesting."

Well, I find that comment to be one of the most interesting I've seen in this forum.

First of all, it's not a question of "inability". This forum has never struck me as a "Christian" debate forum. It feels more like an "is there a God or no God" debate more than anything else. Theists vs atheists seems the rule.

Secondly, no one, whether theist or not, agrees with everyone on everything all the time. In my opinion public debate with other Christians is unfruitful, and I refrain from doing so as much as possible. I have responded a time or two with other Christians in this forum with whom I had disagreement, but received in return no comment, which I wasn't expecting anyway.

But your comment raises an interesting question. Why are the professing Christians in this forum unwilling, as apposed to unable, to engage in debate over differences in doctrinal perspectives as they are put forth by the scriptures?

Everyone, whether theist or not, has a different answer to that question. But what is the true answer? Where do we find that answer? Again, everyone has a different idea.

So what is the truth? Seems the universal question at the end of every debate.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to skate around the issue. I'm interested in seeing where this may lead.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
It is like an advanced "Prisoner's Dilemma"

If nobody participates in creating the AI we are all safe.

But if enough participate then those who don't suffer!

Personally, I wouldn't be able to participate in the invention of an AI if I thought it would lead to such a thing having the power of making free will decisions that would effect the safety and well being of other human beings.

Originally posted by josephw
Personally, I wouldn't be able to participate in the invention of an AI if I thought it would lead to such a thing having the power of making free will decisions that would effect the safety and well being of other human beings.

I would think in the development of true AI, they would have a few backups up their sleeve, like a secret OFF button, AI's may end up being ten times smarter than humans at EVERYTHING but they still have that tiny weakness, they need to eat electrons or in the future, maybe photons. If an AI didn't know about that secret off button, it can be controlled. It might be able to detect sneaky control algorithms but it could be brought up blissfully unaware of the fact that it needs electrons or photons and that would solve any issues with that beast.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I would think in the development of true AI, they would have a few backups up their sleeve, like a secret OFF button, AI's may end up being ten times smarter than humans at EVERYTHING but they still have that tiny weakness, they need to eat electrons or in the future, maybe photons. If an AI didn't know about that secret off button, it can be controlled. It ...[text shortened]... of the fact that it needs electrons or photons and that would solve any issues with that beast.

That's what I love about science fiction. There's no end to the possibilities.

Except what I consider to be the cost of the introduction of new technologies that can have detrimental effects on the human condition. I understand that we need to weigh the good with the bad, but atomic bombs?

I can't say what it will mean for humankind to have a machine so advanced that it would "take over" the decision making process for the direction of human development. Sounds scary. I don't know.

Originally posted by josephw
But your comment raises an interesting question. Why are the professing Christians in this forum unwilling, as apposed to unable, to engage in debate over differences in doctrinal perspectives as they are put forth by the scriptures?

Maybe there are those who just don't like to be compared to "Satan" and other brutal and rancorous rhetoric like that which seems to crop up sometimes when Christians disagree about doctrine. Maybe this kind of Christian brinkmanship goes some way towards inhibiting debate and suppressing expressions of dissent.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I would think in the development of true AI, they would have a few backups up their sleeve, like a secret OFF button, AI's may end up being ten times smarter than humans at EVERYTHING but they still have that tiny weakness, they need to eat electrons or in the future, maybe photons. If an AI didn't know about that secret off button, it can be controlled. It ...[text shortened]... of the fact that it needs electrons or photons and that would solve any issues with that beast.

That's what caused all the problems in Terminator. Just don't precondition the thing with an inept version of Utilitarianism.