Just in case anyone cares what the difference is - most possible Gods are about equally likely (no reason to think that one is much more likely to exist than another), while possible AIs which have reached SuperIntelligence status (to the point where they can simulate people for a start) are more likely to be certain ways (for example, self-preservation is not a consideration for an immortal God, nor is research something such a God must engage in, in order to gain knowledge, etc.).
I am giving the reasons why I think so, if you disagree, you can point out what is wrong in my line of thinking: AIs are more likely to care for self-preservation (in some way), because AIs that don't are less likely to exist (since they die earlier), while Gods could have other mechanisms for survival (such as being immortal right off the bat).
Still the point remains that we have not yet encountered any superintelligent entities, AI's or deities and therefore any statement about their capabilities, intents or character are pure speculation - indeed it seems to me that usually people just extrapolate human behavior.
Pascal's wager at least involves widely known and culturally influential concept. This is more like small kid drawing a bogeymen, being scared of it and throwing a tantrum
* Because Pascal's wager could apply to any possible variation of supreme being - including non-sensical ones and ones that will punish you if you DO believe in them.
* Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you).
* Pascal's wager does concern itself with the possibility that you are currently in a simulation.
>Because Pascal's wager could apply to any possible variation of supreme being - including non-sensical ones and ones that will punish you if you DO believe in them.
Since we know exactly nothing about Roko's Basilisk, we know nothing about its behavior. I could propose that it concludes that for its survival it is best to cultivate a certain level of cooperation with humans. Based on that it might determine that those who did believe in it before any proof are gullible and irrational and might exterminate them in order to free resources for sceptical thinkers who cooperate in the face of proof.
Non-sensical is an ill-defined category if we are talking about something with higher intellectual capabilities than ourselves - a dog might consider a lot of human behavior non-sensical.
>Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you).
Since this most likely violates thermodynamical principles (simulation DOES require energy, the simulation of everything requires infinite energy) I fail to see how it is not either impossible or a deity.
>Pascal's wager does concern itself with the possibility that you are currently in a simulation.
IDK, to me this is only a different take on solipsism which states that I can only be sure that my own mind exists, everything else - my body, you, the world around me - might be an imagination.
>Since we know exactly nothing about Roko's Basilisk
False. We can make several assertions about the Basilisk under the thought experiment. That's what I just did.
>Since this most likely violates thermodynamical principles (simulation DOES require energy, the simulation of everything requires infinite energy)
Also false. Simulating a human being or even multiple human beings or even every human being in existence does not require infinite energy. Simulating one person probably doesn't even require a lot of energy at all.
>Roko's Basilisk isn't really a deity, it's a powerful AI with the capability of simulating you and everybody else (or possibly just you).
At the risk of sounding flippant: What's the difference? If the AI is so powerful that it can simulate my thoughts (which would imply that thoughts and all of life is 100% deterministic), it has to be so powerful that it's practically omnipotent, and therefore, a God.
From what I understood, it doesn't require 100% determinism OR a perfect simulation for the thought experiment to hold.
It just needs enough to sort most of the humans into "will help basilisk come into existence" and "won't help basilisk". It probably doesn't even need to be 100% accurate at that.
I don't think being able to imperfectly simulate thoughts requires Godlike ability, either. I could see it happening in my life time.
Assuming I'm not being simulated right now, that is :/
The difference is at most the terminology. I'm sure that a lot of weed-smoking metaphysicists can say this better than I can, but the whole point of calling something God is that it's beyond your perception, and as such your perception can't help you understand it. Similarly, if your neurons are simulated by an AI, you can do nothing to prove its existence or non-existence. It's the same thing, IMHO.