>>11929271You're right, there's no reason for any of us to be afraid of the basilisk. I'm not saying you should be.
In the thought experiment the basilisk doesn't torture simulations itself, the basilisk actually tortures people in its own existence. The simulations come about from other actors trying to understand the basilisk, because in TDT that's absolutely a requirement for the basilisk to follow through on its blackmail at all. The only way to understand the basilisk, as with any sufficiently complex system, is to simulate it.
Let's say you are researching the basilisk's source code in the distant future. The possible outcomes for the basilisk are this, in order of preference to it:
1. The basilisk does not follow through on its blackmail, but tricks you into thinking it will.
This is extremely difficult for it to do, as it will have to give you, who has the access and ability to understand its source code, complete confidence it will follow through despite actually not doing it.
This corresponds to Alice (present) and Bob (future) choosing "comply" and "defect" respectively in the prisoners dilemma. This is the best outcome for Bob (the basilisk in this case), but also difficult or even impossible in TDT.
2. The basilisk does follow through on its blackmail.
This is possible in TDT, but not CDT, and corresponds to mutual compliance.
3. The basilisk does not follow through on its blackmail.
This is the only outcome in CDT, but in TDT this means the basilisk poses no threat at all, as you understand the basilisk's source code at this point, you can see its blackmail is worthless.
This corresponds to mutual defection.
So, as future you is researching the basilisk's source code, you run simulations on it to see what it does to you when it is created under different circumstances.
There's no reason for anyone to be afraid because either you're in a simulation you have no control over and you'll be tortured anyway, or it cannot exist at all (yet at least).
