this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

983 readers
12 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
self@awful.systems
blakestacey@awful.systems
dgerard@awful.systems
4
The Cult of AI (including some fan favourites) (www.rollingstone.com)
submitted 9 months ago by tante@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 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.