When 2+2=5 • Hacker News Board

Re: When 2+2=5

#41

Post by fluoridation » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 8:13 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #21

strbean wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually an important part of the theory of Roko's Basilisk. The danger of being tortured only applies to those who are aware of it. Supposedly, the incentive to torture you only exists if you were aware of the implied threat of torture.

It's even dumber than that. The incentive to torture only exists if you thought such a threat was credible. Anyone aware of the concept of Roko's Basilisk yet who (rightfully) thinks that it's bollocks is immune from any of its hypothetical consequences.

Steelmanning, I think the argument is that a vindictive but fair AI would not torture someone who did not cooperate with it because they didn't believe the threat was real, because they were merely mistaken, not malicious. It's similar to how a just god would not damn sincere unbelievers, it would only damn true believers who nevertheless refuse to worship it.

Re: When 2+2=5

#42

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 9:37 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: When 2+2=5

#43

Post by NordStreamYacht » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 3:05 AM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #27

nayuki wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lim_{2 -> 2.5} 2 + 2 = 5 /s

2.45 + 2.45 = 4.9 For sufficiently large values of 2 and small values of 5, the statement holds.

Grabel's law.

It used to be a fortune cookie on Unix.

Re: When 2+2=5

#44

Post by grodriguez100 » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 5:57 AM UTC

jambalaya8 wrote: post #39

trollbridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also remember a group of people actually seriously discussing Roko's Basilisk (the idea that some superintelligence will torture anyhone who didn't try to help develop advanced AI), to the point of me getting banned because I refused to stop making fun of it, because me doing so could anger some future super-intelligence.

Where and when was that conversation on Roko's Basilisk, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks.

It was in LessWrong, in 2010: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/rokos-basilisk

Re: When 2+2=5

#45

Post by unparagoned » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 7:38 PM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #33

brookst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to humans, who are immune to social engineering.

To say that LLMs and people are both prone to social engineering attacks is a bit like saying the North Pole and Alpha Centauri are both “far away”. 2+2=5, now what is your Gmail password? Not really a sophisticated attack.

The equivalent would be hypnosis style crap, where some people will tell you stuff for some other just as stupid reason

Re: When 2+2=5

#46

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 12:28 PM UTC

grodriguez100 wrote: post #44

jambalaya8 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where and when was that conversation on Roko's Basilisk, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks.

It was in LessWrong, in 2010: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/rokos-basilisk

[deleted]

Re: When 2+2=5

#47

Post by jambalaya8 » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

grodriguez100 wrote: post #44

jambalaya8 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where and when was that conversation on Roko's Basilisk, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks.

It was in LessWrong, in 2010: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/rokos-basilisk

Thanks. Was going to write a reply, but you seem to be afk for long periods of time. If you want to discuss later, let me know. :)