Roko’s Basilisk or Pascal’s? Thinking of Singularity Thought Experiments as Implicit Religion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20206729 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Beth Singler (0000-0001-9471-0924, Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 279-297 |
| Publication date | 2018-05-22 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Implicit Religion (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1463-9955 • E-ISSN: 1743-1697 |
| Publisher | Equinox Publishing (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1558/imre.35900 |
| OpenAlex | W2803886641 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
In 2010 a thought experiment speculating on the motivations and aims of a potential superintelligent Artificial Intelligence, sometimes known as the ‘Singularity’, caused uproar and anxiety on the forum board where it was initially posted. This paper considers that thought experiment’s debt to older forms of religious argument, the reactions from among the community, and how expectations about the Singularity as a being with agency can be considered to be an example of implicit religion. This is significant as the thought experiment appeared in a field of research, AI, considered by many to be secular due to its technological focus. The communities under discussion also explicitly express their aim of ‘perfecting’ human rationality, and place that ability in opposition to ‘religion’ as a derided object and the aims of ‘Goddists’ in general. This tension between overt atheism and secular communities’ return to religious tropes and narratives is relevant for the wider study of religion in the contemporary era
Atheism · Epistemology · Narrative · Political science · Rationality · Singularity · Sociology · Thought experiment · Computer Science · Law · Mathematics · Media, Religion, Digital Communication · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices
| Citations per year | 0.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Highly cited | No |