If you can’t affect creation of an extortion ASI, then you can’t affect its posited acausal incentives either, since these things are one and the same.
Within the hypothetical of expecting likely creation of an extortion ASI, what it does and why is no longer unimportant, Pascal’s wager issues no longer apply. Though it still makes sense to remain defiant (to the extent you do have the ability to affect the outcomes), feeding the principle that blackmail works more rarely and that there’s coordination around defying it, maintaining integrity of the worlds that (as a result) remain less affected by its influence.
“Within the hypothetical of expecting likely creation of an extortion ASI, what it does and why is no longer unimportant, Pascal’s wager issues no longer apply.” I disagree with this. It makes sense for an ASI to want to increase the probability (by which I mean the proportion of the platonic/mathematical universe in which it exists) of its creation, even if it’s already likely (and certain in worlds where it already exists) . “Though it still makes sense to remain defiant (to the extent you do have the ability to affect the outcomes), feeding the principle that blackmail works more rarely and that there’s coordination around defying it, maintaining integrity of the worlds that (as a result) remain unaffected by its influence. ” All else being equal, yes, but when faced with the possibility of whatever punishment a ‘basilisk’ might inflict on me, I might have to give in.
If you can’t affect creation of an extortion ASI, then you can’t affect its posited acausal incentives either, since these things are one and the same.
Within the hypothetical of expecting likely creation of an extortion ASI, what it does and why is no longer unimportant, Pascal’s wager issues no longer apply. Though it still makes sense to remain defiant (to the extent you do have the ability to affect the outcomes), feeding the principle that blackmail works more rarely and that there’s coordination around defying it, maintaining integrity of the worlds that (as a result) remain less affected by its influence.
“Within the hypothetical of expecting likely creation of an extortion ASI, what it does and why is no longer unimportant, Pascal’s wager issues no longer apply.” I disagree with this. It makes sense for an ASI to want to increase the probability (by which I mean the proportion of the platonic/mathematical universe in which it exists) of its creation, even if it’s already likely (and certain in worlds where it already exists) . “Though it still makes sense to remain defiant (to the extent you do have the ability to affect the outcomes), feeding the principle that blackmail works more rarely and that there’s coordination around defying it, maintaining integrity of the worlds that (as a result) remain unaffected by its influence. ” All else being equal, yes, but when faced with the possibility of whatever punishment a ‘basilisk’ might inflict on me, I might have to give in.