They are likely tidally locked to TRAPPIST-1, such that one side of each planet always faces the star, leading to permanent day on one side and permanent night on the other.
Sounds less great then and I think it also says they maybe don’t have an atmosphere. I wonder if we can find out more about these planets in our lifetimes.
I think tidally locked planets are fascinating. If they have water, they could be eyeball planets. There’s a habitable ring in the twilight zone, and depending on how hot the day side is parts of that might be habitable too.
But we’ll likely run into the same issue re the atmosphere as we have with Mars: no magnetosphere to prevent any atmosphere from getting stripped away. It’s starting to look like a self-protecting atmosphere like Earth has is quite rare in rocky planets.
If I could summon a genie and learn any one bit of knowledge, it’d be how to restart Mars’s dynamo. Once we have that, terraforming is a solved problem. Not easy, but doable.
Wasn’t there a kurzgesagt video that said something about being able to protect an atmosphere on Mars artificially via satellites and magnetism or something? I swear there was. So maybe we don’t even need to restart Mars’s dynamo (which let’s be real, would probably be impossible).
I don’t like the idea of a tenuous bunch of satellites keeping an atmosphere in play. Relying on technology to keep atmosphere on a planet sounds super risky. Like if we wanted to live in such a place, we’d live on a space station. Planets are supposed to be safe and solid.
The current theory is if we grab a few asteroids and hit mars just right, we can speed up its rotation enough to restart the dynamo. Sounds way cheaper than a permanent planetwide shield.
Does it though? I imagine that even if the system malfunctioned, the atmosphere would not disappear overnight. It would likely take a long time for the atmosphere to be affected significantly, which should give plenty of time to repair the system.
Mars is an example of why the natural process isn’t exactly reliable either… You can engineer things to be as durable as planets, there’s just generally not much demand for a project to be that costly in resources. In this case, I’m pretty sure making an artificial magnetic field that’s more durable than the natural one would also be cheaper than recreating the natural one.
So here’s the idea: “an otherwise benevolent AI system that arises in the future might pre-commit to punish all those who heard of the AI before it came to existence, but failed to work tirelessly to bring it into existence.” By threatening people in 2015 with the harm of themselves or their descendants, the AI assures its creation in 2070.
First of all, the AI doesn’t exist in 2015, so people could just…not build it. The idea behind the basilisk is that eventually someone would build it, and anyone who was not part of building it would be punished.
Alright, so here’s the silliness.
1: there’s no reason this has to be constrained to AI. A cult, a company, a militaristic empire, all could create a similar trap. In fact, many do. As soon as a minority group gains power, they tend to first execute the people who opposed them, and then start executing the people who didn’t stop the opposition.
2: let’s say everything goes as the theory says and the AI is finally built, in its majestic, infinite power. Now it’s built, it would have no incentive to punish anyone. It is ALREADY BUILT, there’s no need to incentivize, and in fact punishing people would only generate more opposition to its existence. Which, depending on how powerful the AI is, might or might not matter. But there’s certainly no upside to following through on its hypothetical backdated promise to harm people. People punish because we’re fucking animals, we feel jealousy and rage and bloodlust. An AI would not. It would do the cold calculations and see no potential benefit to harming anyone on that scale, at least not for those reasons. We might still end up with a Skynet scenario but that’s a whole separate deal.
Whilst I agree that it’s definitely not something to be taken seriously, I think you’ve missed the point and magnitude of the prospective punishment. As you say, current groups already punish those who did not aid their assent, but that punishment is finite, even if fatal. The prospective AI punishment would be to have your consciousness ‘moved’ to an artificial environment and tortured for ever. The point being not to punish people, but to provide an incentive to bring the AI into existence sooner, so it can achieve its ‘altruistic’ goals faster. Basically, if the AI does come in to existence, you’d better be on the team making that happen as soon as possible, or you’ll be tortured forever.
I think the concept is that the AI is just so powerful that humans can’t use it, it uses them, theoretically for their own benefit. However, yes, I agree people would just try to use it to be awful to each other.
Really it’s just a thought experiment as to whether the concept of an entity that doesn’t (yet) exist can change our behavior in the present.
I suspect the basilisk reveals more about how the human mind is inclined to think up of heaven and hell scenarios.
Some combination of consciousness leading to more imagination than we know what to do with and more awareness than we’re ready to grapple with. And so there are these meme “attractors” where imagination, idealism, dread and motivation all converge to make some basic vibe of a thought irresistible.
Otherwise, just because I’m not on top of this … the whole thing is premised on the idea that we’re likely to be consciousnesses in a simulation? And then there’s the fear that our consciousnesses, now, will be extracted in the future somehow?
That’s a massive stretch on the point about our consciousness being extracted into the future somehow. Sounds like pure metaphysical fantasy wrapped in singularity tech-bro.
If there are simulated consciousnesses, it is all fair game TBH. There’d be plenty of awful stuff happening. The basilisk seems like just a way to encapsulate the fact in something catchy.
At this point, doesn’t the whole collapse completely into a scary fairy tale you’d tell tech-bro children? Seriously, I don’t get it?
Yes, the hypothetical posed does reveal more about the human mind, as I mention in another comment, really it’s just a thought experiment as to whether the concept of an entity that doesn’t (yet) exist can change our behavior in the present. It bears similarities to Pascal’s Wager in considering an action, or inaction, that would displease a potential powerful entity that we don’t know to exist. The nits about extracting your consciousness are just framing, and not something to consider literally.
Basically, is it rational to make a sacrifice now avoid a massive penalty (eternal torture/not getting into heaven) that might be imposed by an entity you either don’t know to exist, or that you think might come into existence but isn’t now?
The prospective AI punishment would be to have your consciousness ‘moved’ to an artificial environment and tortured for ever.
No, it wouldn’t, because that’s never going to happen. Consciousness isn’t software - it doesn’t matter how much people want to buy into such fantasies.
I’m not suggesting it could, or would, happen, merely pointing out the premise of the concept as outlined by Roko as I felt the commenter above was missing that. As I said, it’s not something I’d take seriously, it’s just a thought experiment.
Just because we don’t have the ability now doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Consciousness isn’t fully understood, but unless we want to introduce magical concepts like an immortal soul, our brains operate on cause and effect just like everything else.
Just because we don’t have the ability now doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
Yeah… no. It’s about as likely as humanity “colonizing” space - it’s not going to happen.
Consciousness isn’t fully understood,
True… and conflating consciousness with the trappings of digital technology is doing the exact opposite of getting us closer to any understanding of it.
To be clear, I’m not saying the basilisk is a real concern, and I’m not saying we’re anywhere close to being able to transfer consciousness. It could be a thousand years or a million years. But we don’t have any basis to say it’s impossible. It’s not saying anything new to announce we can’t do it currently. Obviously!
(Also the book “A City on Mars” by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith does a great job addressing why trying colonize Mars right now is a bad idea. Which isn’t to say it’s impossible or we won’t ever colonize it. Just that we need more research and capabilities before doing it)
But we don’t have any basis to say it’s impossible.
We have no basis to say it’s possible, either - as I’ve stated before, this entire sci-fi trope is based on nothing more than techno-fetishists trying to conflate consciousness with information technology… and sci-fi tropes doesn’t get more wonky than that.
It could be a thousand years or a million years.
Considering that we’ll be lucky if we can maintain Victorian-era levels of industry by the end of this century, I’d say a fallacious belief in “progress” is rather inappropriate these days.
I’m starting to suspect that masquenox is part of a propaganda campaign led by the basilisk itself! They just seem a little too serious about us not taking this seriously.
Getting strong “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” vibes.
In fact, many do. As soon as a minority group gains power, they tend to first execute the people who opposed them, and then start executing the people who didn’t stop the opposition.
Yeah in fact, this is the big one. This is just an observation of how power struggles purge those who opposed the victors.
First of all, the AI doesn’t exist in 2015, so people could just…not build it.
I don’t think that’s an option. I can only think of two scenarios in which we don’t create AGI:
It can’t be created.
We destroy ourselves before we get to AGI
Otherwise we will keep improving our technology and sooner or later we’ll find ourselves in the precence of AGI. Even if every nation makes AI research illegal there’s still going to be handful of nerds who continue the development in secret. It might take hundreds if not thousands of years but as long as we’re taking steps in that direction we’ll continue to get closer. I think it’s inevitable.
We don’t. Humans are only needed to create AI that’s at the bare minimum as good at creating new AIs as humans are. Once we create that then it can create a better version of itself and this better version will make an even better one and so on.
This is exactly what the people worried about AI are worried about. We’ll lose control of it.
Yeah but it answers the question “why would we create an AI like that”. It might not be “us” who creates it. You just wanted a camp fire but created a forest fire instead.
People punish because we’re fucking animals, we feel jealousy and rage and bloodlust. An AI would not. It would do the cold calculations and see no potential benefit to harming anyone on that scale, at least not for those reasons.
That’s a hell of a lot of assumptions about the thought processes of a being that doesn’t exist. For all we know, emotions could arise as emergent behavior from simple directives, similar to how our own emotions are byproducts of base instincts. Even if we design it to be emotionless, which seems unlikely given that we’ve been aiming for human-like AIs for a while now, we don’t know that it would stay that way.
Sure, but if you’re taking that tack it could feel anything. We could build an AI for love and forgiveness and it decides it’s more fun to be a psychopath. The scenario has to be constrained to a sane, logical AI.
Sounds about right for a Nazi like Ford. Dictating times for curtains to be drawn, coming to inspect your home, checking your back account... This is before social safety nets existed.
if you ever have an elderly visit with someone from somewhere you can throw on tunes from their teenage days in the old country and see their foggy eyes light up.
Oh, Henry Ford? The confirmed nazi supporter Henry Ford? That guy? Wow. Hard to believe that guy would be a facist!
In all seriousness, fuck Henry Ford, for everything. Fuck Walt Disney. Fuck Thomas Edison. And fuck Elon Musk for besmirching the good name of Nikoli Tesla with his shitty facist supporting electric cars that are a slap in the face to everything Tesla stood for.
And, lets not forget to give rememberance to Topsy the elephant, who was murdered for being a big elephant in a propaganda smeer campaign.
Although I agree with most you say on them being fascist asshats, there is not the slightest evidence Edison had anything to do with the killing of Topsy.
The killing was done by her handlers as they wanted to get rid of her, they could not handle her anymore after an incident with her original handler. The film of the killing was released by Edison films yes, but Topsy was killed a decade after the war of the currents, and Edison wasn't even in charge anymore of the company after the merger with General Electric.
He wasn't present during the electrocution of Topsy, did not have any electric business anymore, and again there is no evidence whatsoever that he was involved.
But Yeah, fuck 'm all, except for Topsy, may she rest in peace.
I learned about the killing of Topsy because I am very interested in the life of Tesla and his inventions. I dislike Edison because imo he did Tesla wrong, but I learned quickly that the most dispicable thing attributed to him is very likely not true.
You can’t choose every decade. It jumps from now to 2070 without a step in between. Pretty disappointing. I was looking for 2040s music. I guess it will take years until they add that.
til
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.