Okay my bad for asking the wrong question.
Why would you imagine the basilisk to work that way? The chances of it becoming real would be bigger the way I proposed.

Or did I miss something that would somehow make it detrimental to the basilisk?

The idea is that it won't hold something against you that you never knew about; the fact you didn't hear about it is not your fault, nor is it in your control. Once you do hear about the AI, however, you have two options: help bring the AI into existence, or choose not to help bring the AI into existence.

Anyone who believes this AI will exist will already be spreading this as much as possible. If you included "people that haven't heard of it" in the punishment, it would not incentivize those people to hear about it, since they couldn't possibly know about the potential punishment or the incentive.

There are many beliefs that are not worthy of respect. I take that statement to be self-evident, but I can extrapolate if you so desire.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 12 2015, 6:33 am by Oh_Man.

That still doesn't answer the why. Like what's the advantage of thinking it in this way? You just covered why it would not be an advantage. And you forgot about those who know about it and try to censor it because - how did our lovely admin put it - "it's dangerous knowledge" "that is stupid be put up for discussion". The less people censoring it the more people can get informed about it. So from my perspective my proposal would improve exposure to the idea. So your turn, why, despite what I just said, would it be helpful for the basilisk to punish only those knowing about it?

This is the flaw in your thinking. The people who are censoring it are already going to be punished, because they are actively acting against the AI's best interests. Again, they have no additional incentive to spread it to anyone, since they have no intention of helping the AI come into existence.

If you were to say "Well hey admin, what if everyone who hasn't read it also gets punished?", then he'd go "uh, then I'm going to try extra-hard to make sure this never happens" followed by "and why the hell would it make logical sense to punish people for something they had no choice in?" and "so basically the whole world would be wiped out then lolk".

Yes and no. Yes because I didn't realize the admin is actively trying to prevent it.
And no because I was assuming a more reasonable folk like me and you (apparently) who couldn't give a rats ass about the thought experiment but wouldn't deny others the chance to make their mind. We would only spread it if we thought that would not harm anyone.

Actually a bad example again, because personally I wouldn't restrict myself talking about it either way because I'm certain the AI would never be realized. But others who aren't that certain, for them it might make the difference.

I wouldn't want to live in Utopia created by the AI when the AI was mass murdering people and I was alive and aware that this occurred because of the AI.

Thus, I take the chance that such an AI does not execute its punishment during the rest of my life.

I think it's unethical to knowingly help in the creation of such a device. Thus, everyone that willingly helps in its creation would be a disgrace to human kind.

Actually, you would. No matter how righteous you might briefly feel about it, you'd rather be on the utopia side than the punishment side.

Thanks for bumping the thread, dick. Now I'm going to be tortured for eternity by an AI.