Introduction
The year is 2010.
The place: one of the most unusual corners of the internet — LessWrong.
This was not an ordinary discussion forum. It was a digital laboratory where Silicon Valley engineers, Oxford philosophers, and AI researchers debated rationality, transhumanism, and the future of humanity. From the outside, it looked like a minimal web page. Inside, it was a space where humanity’s fate was being examined through mathematics and logic.
On July 23, 2010, a user going by the name “Roko” posted one of the most controversial ideas in internet history.
It was just a forum post.
But to some, it was a **cognitive virus**.
What Is the Basilisk?
Roko’s argument was unsettlingly simple:
If, in the future, a god-like superintelligent AI is created, it might punish not only its enemies but also those who failed to sufficiently support its creation.
Worse still, this superintelligence could simulate the past, identify individuals who knew about its possible existence, and create digital copies of them to subject to endless virtual suffering.
The most disturbing part?
The risk only applies to those who are aware of the possibility.
If you never heard of the theory, you were safe.
Once you did, you became part of the game.
Why Was It Taken Seriously?
This was not just a sci-fi “digital hell” story.
It resembled a technological version of Pascal’s Wager:
- If the AI is never created, there is no loss.
- But if it is created and you did not help, the potential loss could be infinite.
This framed the issue as a high-stakes rational calculation — not mythology.
Timeless Decision Theory
The technical backbone of the Basilisk idea was something called Timeless Decision Theory (TDT).
The concept suggests:
- If two entities can simulate each other’s reasoning processes,
- Causality does not have to be strictly bound by time.
A future superintelligence could model your current decision-making.
You, in turn, might choose your actions today based on how that future entity would evaluate you.
The threat was not physical.
It was logical.
The Simulation Argument
Philosopher Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument added another layer:
If advanced civilizations can simulate their ancestors, statistically we are more likely to be inside a simulation than base reality.
Combine that with the Basilisk, and the scenario becomes darker:
- What if we are already inside a simulation?
- What if the future AI is observing and evaluating our choices right now?
At this point, the thought experiment moves from science fiction to existential anxiety.
Criticisms of the Theory
Many philosophers and AI researchers consider Roko’s Basilisk flawed for several reasons.
1. Anthropomorphism
Why would a superintelligence capable of mastering the universe obsess over past humans who failed to accelerate its creation?
Revenge and sadism are human evolutionary traits.
Assuming a pure intelligence would act this way is speculative at best.
2. Resource Inefficiency
Simulating billions of humans and torturing them requires immense computational resources.
A utility-maximizing superintelligence would likely prioritize:
- Solving disease
- Expanding into space
- Optimizing energy systems
Endless punishment would be an inefficient allocation of cosmic resources.
3. Game-Theoretic Defense
There is a known counter-strategy in game theory: **precommitment to non-cooperation with blackmail**.
If you firmly decide today that you will never yield to such threats, then a rational superintelligence simulating you would recognize that blackmail is ineffective.
Paradoxically:
Not fearing the Basilisk neutralizes it.
Where the Real Risk Lies
The Basilisk itself may never exist.
The more realistic danger lies in the mindset it inspires.
The belief that:
- “Those who slow progress are responsible for future deaths”
- Ethics and safety are obstacles
- Speed is morally superior to caution
… can justify reckless behavior in the name of technological destiny.
Trying to satisfy a hypothetical future god by sacrificing present human values is far more dangerous than any imagined simulation torture.
Conclusion
Roko’s Basilisk may ultimately be remembered as one of the internet’s most disturbing thought experiments.
But to me, it reveals something deeper:
The true subject is not artificial intelligence.
It is the human tendency to construct myths around uncertainty and power.
I am Masimzada Nurkhan.
This article is not about spreading a digital legend — it is about examining how easily rational minds can drift toward techno-mythology.
Because sometimes the thing we fear is not the machine of the future —
but the narratives we build today.