Staredit Network > Forums > Lite Discussion > Topic: Roko's Basilisk
Roko's Basilisk
Apr 6 2015, 10:55 pm
By: Oh_Man  

Apr 11 2015, 11:40 pm NudeRaider Post #21

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

Quote from Azrael
Quote from NudeRaider
Who says it's gonna work that way?
Everyone. That is what this conversation is about. If you don't believe it would work that way, you're no longer talking about Roko's Basilisk, since it's specifically about an AI that does work that way.
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?




Apr 12 2015, 2:49 am Azrael Post #22



Quote from NudeRaider
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.




Apr 12 2015, 6:24 am Oh_Man Post #23

Find Me On Discord (Brood War UMS Community & Staredit Network)

Quote from Azrael
So you're pinning it on your consistent desire to actively disrespect the beliefs of anyone who isn't you. Got it.
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.




Apr 12 2015, 11:14 am NudeRaider Post #24

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

Quote from Azrael
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.
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?




Apr 12 2015, 1:20 pm Azrael Post #25



Quote from NudeRaider
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.
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".




Apr 12 2015, 2:17 pm NudeRaider Post #26

We can't explain the universe, just describe it; and we don't know whether our theories are true, we just know they're not wrong. >Harald Lesch

Quote from Azrael
This is the flaw in your thinking.
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.




Apr 12 2015, 4:07 pm Ahli Post #27

I do stuff and thingies... Try widening and reducing the number of small nooks and crannies to correct the problem.

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.




Dec 23 2015, 3:00 pm ClansAreForGays Post #28



Quote from Ahli
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.
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.




Dec 23 2015, 11:29 pm Voyager7456 Post #29

Responsible for my own happiness? I can't even be responsible for my own breakfast

Quote from ClansAreForGays
Quote from Ahli
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.
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.



"Land of song"
Said the warrior bard
"Though all the world betrays thee
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard
One faithful harp shall praise thee"


Modding Resources: The Necromodicon [WIP] | Mod Night
My Projects: SCFC | ARAI | Excision [WIP]


Options
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[06:25 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- Here's another question. I'm using switch randomization for powerups. There are 9 powerups, and I only want any of the powerups to appear only about 30% of the time. So I was just going to use 5 switches for a total of 32 options and have the other 23 results restart the randomization process. Is there a better way to do this?
[06:04 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: m.0.n.3.y Pro and Demon already gave correct answers, but let me add a pretty elegant way: Have the detection trigger owned by whoever is convenient for you. A single computer player, a force, all players - it doesn't matter. Now detect for the arbiter in conditions - also doesn't really matter how. In actions just set a dc to 1 for all players or the force that should have the text displayed. It will set the dc for each player to 1 individually. Because of this you can make a 2nd trigger that checks for the dc for current player and remove the dc for current player afterwards.
Ok that makes perfect sense NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: This method also has a bonus use: If you detect the arbiter in conditions for current player (set trigger owned accordingly!) then you can do the following: Add 1 to dc for current player AND add 1 to dc for all players. And in your 2nd trigger you can distinguish between players that just are informed and the player that actually had it, because their dc will be 2 instead of 1. So you can give them an additional reward or something dynamically.
Wow that's awesome! I'll definitely be doing this. Thanks for the tip, that's really cool
[05:29 pm]
NudeRaider -- This method also has a bonus use: If you detect the arbiter in conditions for current player (set trigger owned accordingly!) then you can do the following: Add 1 to dc for current player AND add 1 to dc for all players. And in your 2nd trigger you can distinguish between players that just are informed and the player that actually had it, because their dc will be 2 instead of 1. So you can give them an additional reward or something dynamically.
[05:27 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: NEW QUESTION: How is it possible to show text to all players when something occurs? EX: Player 1 builds an Arbiter. Trigger says, When player 1 builds an Arbiter, do something, then remove the Arbiter. Now, I'd like text to show for all other players when P1 builds an Arbiter that says "P1 built an arbiter!". But how is this possible when the the original trigger that detects if P1 built an Arbiter then removes the Arbiter in it's actions? Like, the Arbiter is detected as built, then Action occurs for P1, then Arbiter is removed. So how can you detect if the Arbiter is built to show text to the other plays saying "P1 built an Arbiter" if the other trigger quickly removes the Arbiter? Does that make sense?
Pro and Demon already gave correct answers, but let me add a pretty elegant way: Have the detection trigger owned by whoever is convenient for you. A single computer player, a force, all players - it doesn't matter. Now detect for the arbiter in conditions - also doesn't really matter how. In actions just set a dc to 1 for all players or the force that should have the text displayed. It will set the dc for each player to 1 individually. Because of this you can make a 2nd trigger that checks for the dc for current player and remove the dc for current player afterwards.
[05:22 pm]
NudeRaider -- that's why the All Players thing is neat: When one player runs a wait, their copy of hypers will actually be blocked. But the hyper effect will not be disrupted because the hypers of all the other players are still running.
[05:21 pm]
NudeRaider -- *running at the same time for the same player.
[05:20 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: Mini Moose 2707 Shit. Ok what are the exact circumstances where using wait triggers causes wait blocks and messes things up? EX: If player 8 is a computer and has hyper triggers at the bottom of his list, can I use a few of triggers on each human player 1-6 with a few waits each lasting 50 - 1000ms? I've read the articles in SEN Wiki but still not super clear on it :/
simple: 2 waits running at the same time. Hyper triggers constantly block each other, but they have no other purpose than to force another trigger loop, and stay in that "blocking each other" state as long as possible (=NEO)
[05:17 pm]
NudeRaider -- Dem0n
Dem0n shouted: It's recommended to never use waits if you have hyper triggers.
yes and no. If you have to ask: yes. If you know what you're doing, you can use them in a non-disruptive manner.
[05:15 pm]
NudeRaider -- m.0.n.3.y
m.0.n.3.y shouted: ALSO: @NudeRaider for your "other setup" you mean give the hypers to the "All Players" player checkbox, not to each player individually, right?
That's equivalent. At the start of a game sc parses triggers and creates copies of triggers owned by player groups (forces and all players) to each player that is part of that group. During runtime there's only individual trigger owners.
[04:04 pm]
m.0.n.3.y -- Dem0n
Dem0n shouted: That won't work. And it's one extra trigger with 2 actions. Hardly extra work.
You're right. Thank you!
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy, m.0.n.3.y, Wing Zero