There is a more concise phrasing for the idea you seem to be trying to get at - decision theory has to consider the fact that the decision makers in the real world that we live in have finite resources. There are an infinite number of potential Roko Basilisks (all religions and all theoretically describable religions of which Roko's is one). Since the decision maker doesn't have enough resources to deal with all of them, they end up having to ignore the basilisk in practice.
There isn't really a question here about alignment in the Roko scenario, the argument falls apart a lot earlier than that. The problem is there are an infinite number of unaligned AI that would have different punishment schemes - making the threat of any given one worth devoting 0 resources to in practice. Including argument/mental consideration time, for that matter.
If Roko's Basilisk is real, then it stands to reason that there will eventually be resistance to it. Presumably this resistance, aware of the promise that the Basilisk is supposed to have made towards its followers, will target them, and ensure that they are never uploaded or recreated in virtuality.
In short, Roko's Cockatrice cancels out the Basilisk. Even if the Basilisk never comes into existence, the immense risk of it arising—and the fact that everyone knows it could happen—ensures that, if the cult of the Basilisk grows enough, it will be ostracised and stamped out by the majority. Believers are the perfect scapegoat for an authoritarian culture, and a legitimate risk to a rational one—after all, wouldn't True Believers eventually strive to bring about the Basilisk on their own, so they can have the rewards they've promised themselves?
At this point you're probably thinking—"Hey, that's just Pascal's Mugging with extra steps!"—fine. But it's way funnier than the way the article presented the idea.
Stay tuned for Roko's Gorgon, which is just a T-800 sent back in time to kill Roko before he makes the original forum post. (Given enough time, and the possibility of time travel being invented, it has to happen eventually, right?)
I like to imagine if time travel were real, that we wouldn't necessarily know what was changed, because it would have been changed before we knew about it. Time marches on, so a clone or fork is made of the universe and time just carries on from whatever the tamper was.
So, the fact we're discussing it means: time travel exists but Roko's Basilisk does never; or time travel does not exist and the actuality of Roko's basilisk is unknowable.
I was going to say any permutation of those four things but I am very tied and I am unsure if that is a weaker argument. Tot zeins
Otherwise one could just brood about Supervolcanoes, Solar Storms, Gamma Ray Bursts, Killer Asteroids, all sorts of bad weather, Pandemics, blocks of frozen shit from defect passenger jets plunging out of the skies, fucking Islam...
I think this shitpost is all the needs to be said on this topic.
(Spoilers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LessWrong)
even for Roko's basilisk it does not works if you apply some non-standard thinking like what happens if you apply second derivative basilisk as in would the super-super intelligence punish super-intelligence for bad behavior leading up to its own creation. IMO basilisk (& pascals wager for that matter) are cheap attempts to scare masses into submission, self censor & divide us into factions. they are pretty much targeting the worst impulses in humanity.
BTW if you are going to take a model for (mass) compliance I'd say Hindu concept of reincarnation (as in do-overs with random levels .. think Netflix platform movie) is probably a better one than 'pascals wager derivatives'.
