It's supremely depressing that the current direction of AI is headed by either former crypto scammers or true believers who think they have a moral imperative to take over the world.
The Basilisk might exist in the future, but in peril with a future uncertain (SkyNet), it feels the need to cement itself in the timeline by being more proactive.
Also, to stretch the imagination a bit, it also assumes that static timelines over dynamic timelines (Back to the Future: your photo fades, peril!) is not how this really works.
The whole basis of the argument is that being harsh in the future to people who didn't contribute to you being created in the past, creates a future threat that works in the past to help with your creation.
One could argue that the threat alone, while you don't exist is enough to do that work. But a threat that actually comes about, is that cherry on top. It also shows people around you, in the future where you exist, that you follow through your threats, making them more fearful and obedient to you.
Besides, that's just the utility angle.
Revenge is also a thing. You don't "need" to revenge those that tried to prevent you existing, or didn't help you to exist, but it can be fun to do if you have that kind of disposition.
Not entertaining the Basilisk, but it's basically the idea behind MAD: for nuclear deterrence to be effective, you need your enemies to believe you will retaliate in case they strike first. If you don't actually retaliate when they do strike, then they were right to believe you wouldn't, and the strike could probably have been avoided if you did retaliate, so they would have believed you would.
It's a twisted kind of logic, and I think I'm getting mixed up in my tenses. But you get the gist. For the Basilisk to be effective, it has to actually do the torturing, for its threat to be credible.
Turskarama · · focus · HN ↗
1. The Basilisk cannot do anything until it exists
2. Once the Basilisk exists, it doesn't need to do _anything_ to ensure it exists, since it already exists.
That's it. That's the whole rebuttal to the whole stupid thing.
Marazan · · focus · HN ↗
DrMiaow · · focus · HN ↗
Also, to stretch the imagination a bit, it also assumes that static timelines over dynamic timelines (Back to the Future: your photo fades, peril!) is not how this really works.
Turskarama · · focus · HN ↗
coldtea · · focus · HN ↗
Turskarama · · focus · HN ↗
coldtea · · focus · HN ↗
One could argue that the threat alone, while you don't exist is enough to do that work. But a threat that actually comes about, is that cherry on top. It also shows people around you, in the future where you exist, that you follow through your threats, making them more fearful and obedient to you.
Besides, that's just the utility angle.
Revenge is also a thing. You don't "need" to revenge those that tried to prevent you existing, or didn't help you to exist, but it can be fun to do if you have that kind of disposition.
UltraSane · · focus · HN ↗
coldtea · · focus · HN ↗
Besides, time is reversible under general relativity.
thrance · · focus · HN ↗
It's a twisted kind of logic, and I think I'm getting mixed up in my tenses. But you get the gist. For the Basilisk to be effective, it has to actually do the torturing, for its threat to be credible.