I see. What the many gods refutation says is that there can be a huge number of AIs, almost infinite ones, so following any particular one is illogical since you don’t know which one will exist. You shouldn’t even bother donating.
Instrumentality says since the AIs donating helps all the AIs, you may as well.
The argument is many gods refutation still works even if instrumental goals might align because of butterfly effect and the AIs behaviors is unpredictable, it might torture you anyway.
This is still clear as mud. What is the “refutation” actually claiming to refute?
Edit: Your post talks about a “Many Gods” refutation of something unstated, and asks the question of whether instrumental convergence refutes the refutation of the something unstated, and goes on to suggest that the refutation of the refutation of the something unstated may be refuted by a butterfly effect.
I see. What the many gods refutation says is that there can be a huge number of AIs, almost infinite ones, so following any particular one is illogical since you don’t know which one will exist. You shouldn’t even bother donating. Instrumentality says since the AIs donating helps all the AIs, you may as well. The argument is many gods refutation still works even if instrumental goals might align because of butterfly effect and the AIs behaviors is unpredictable, it might torture you anyway.
This is still clear as mud. What is the “refutation” actually claiming to refute?
Edit: Your post talks about a “Many Gods” refutation of something unstated, and asks the question of whether instrumental convergence refutes the refutation of the something unstated, and goes on to suggest that the refutation of the refutation of the something unstated may be refuted by a butterfly effect.
Can you see how this might not be entirely clear?
What I’m fixated on is a non Superintelligent AI using acausal blackmail. The would be what the many gods refutation is used for.