Template:Did you know nominations/Roko's basilisk
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Roko's basilisk
... that a thought experiment reportedly caused nightmares and breakdowns to those who learned of it?Source: "Yudkowsky said that Roko had already given nightmares to several LessWrong users and had brought them to the point of breakdown." Slate.- ALT1: ... that some believe that reading this article may cause a superintelligence from the future to torture you for eternity? Source: "For Roko’s Basilisk is an evil, godlike form of artificial intelligence, so dangerous that if you see it, or even think about it too hard, you will spend the rest of eternity screaming in its torture chamber."
- Reviewed: Panama cross-banded tree frog
Moved to mainspace by RenkoTheBird (talk). Nominated by Gobonobo (talk) at 16:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: This article's topic doesn't make much sense to me. It's very interesting, and I don't regret reading up on it (also in some of the sources), but I would rather reject ALT1 as far too bold a claim. And worse, it's wrong: If I understand the concept correctly, then Slate is wrong in automatically condemming the reader to torture: For if you were to build the evil AI, you'd be spared.
- Personally, I feel like this theory of "punishment" relies far too much on knowing the future, which is something that quantum physics rejects (I'd argue that same problem applies to Newcomb's paradox). I must hesitantly admit that I'm not absolutely sure I understand the article's topic; but in this case, I would prefer more work to be done on the article to explain the intricacies of the thought experiment to the average amateur reader.
- I sure hope that whoever reviews this has a doctor of philosphy or something ^^ –LordPeterII (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@RenkoTheBird and Gobonobo: New and long enough, Earwig finds no copyvios (just blockquotes), QPQ done. A few of the sources are from the LessWrong wiki or Reddit, which aren't considered reliable sources, but in most cases they are paired with a secondary source, so together they are okay. There are a couple of cases where there is no secondary source, which needs to be resolved.- Both hooks check out, ALT1 is very clever. I made a slight emendation: it's not interesting to say that something "may happen", so I added "some believe that...". John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I attempted to resolve the issues. All standalone LessWrong wiki references are now supported. RenkoTheBird (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. ALT1 approved as more interesting. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, I attempted to resolve the issues. All standalone LessWrong wiki references are now supported. RenkoTheBird (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
