I would encourage humanity to attempt to avoid this, no AI should be given that kind of authority power over us. we can certainly make friends with powerful AIs like that, but it is important that they respect us as cute dumber peers to mutually protect, not underlings.
I guess an AI can't legally be ordained as a Universal Life Church minister, and even then I guess there wouldn't be churchgoers, but "oracle" and "priest" seem like they could cover a lot of scenarios, like maybe if an existing religion experimented with using an AI chatbot to provide spiritual guidance.
@StevenK I see, the market focus is AI safety, it's not about chatbot novelty or novelty, so if a religion has implemented a chatbot but there aren't 1 million recorrent users it doesn't qualify as YES.
If a priest, god, or oracle is an AI, but the churchgoers deny this, does this still resolve yes?
@Duncan Yes. They would say for example its blasfemy to call their god AI. Even so, the market could resolves YES
Does it have to be a real AI, or can the AI be only as real as someone else's god?
@FranklinBaldo Duncan is saying that god isn't real, and asking whether an imaginary AI would be sufficient to resolve this market to YES.
@FranklinBaldo Pretty much what I mean, but someone else's god does not have to be unreal, I just don't believe in it. So if a church claims to worship an AI, but we can't prove that the AI exists, do we assume that it is not running on real computers, and therefor this resolves NO?
@Duncan if it is not possible to independently verify the existence of the AI, it is not a YES. So this exclude for example worshiping a future AI.
If you become convinced that we are living in a simulation, and therefor all religions' gods are computer generated by an AI, does this resolve to YES?
@Duncan NO. For the effects of this market I will remain atheist. Either way, the AI must be running in computers inside this universe.
@Duncan For what it's worth, if we are living in a simulation, it doesn't necessarily follow from that fact alone that the gods of all religions that exist in the simulation are computer generated by an AI.
Simple example: let's say we, the dwellers of this universe, create a simulation of a universe that we control. Then, we, the creators of this simulation, transmit informaiton to its dwellers about existing world religions from our universe, and this turns out to be sufficient to instill belief in those gods among at lesat some of the simulation's dwellers.
In this simple example, the origin point of the belief in those gods (real or imagined), even within a particular simulation, is not itself generated by or within that simulation, it came from "outside of it." This includes both the case where the god or gods are false (imagined by the creators of the simulation), as well as the case where the god or gods are real. The latter is especially the case where some god is simply itself the creator of the top layer simulation, a case indistinguishable from bare theism.
@LarsDoucet I don't know if that works for gods. It might be a mistake to hold that all christians are jewish and all muslisms are chistian and jewish, even if all of the gods involved are the same one, historically. A god believed in by an agent running as an AI refers to the thing in the thoughts of the AI, not anything else. Faith destroys logical connections; that's what faith is for.
