Indeed, for all intents and purposes, this is a "modern" Pascal's wager. Much of the issue here is someone's strength of will, and whether or not they'll choose to be bothered by such a mind game. In reality, one will create more harm obsessing and worrying over the possibility of this being true more than in reality it can do you harm.

It seems like the basilisk is only terrifying if you don't temper your rationality with empiricism. There is, as yet, no evidence that such an AI does or could exist, so there's no reason to be bothered by it.

Quite true, because at the moment, the proposed Singularity may not come to fruition for a variety of reasons. Hell, one of the obstacles could be an asteroid collision tomorrow and we'd never know.

EDIT: I don't know why I capitalized "asteroid"

You should capitalize it again, quick - what if it gets upset and decides to crash into us? Better not to think about it!

> then noncompliance is the only moral stance I can equably adopt towards such a being.

That's kind of a ridiculous position to take. If such an omnipotent being did exist, why would it care for your petty notions of human morality?

You're saying you'd subject yourself to endless torment in order to petulantly prove a point to a creature that might have no reason whatsoever to care.

It sounds like children threatening to hold their breath if their parents send them to bed.

By the terms of the problem, it cares a great deal - it's willing to torture you endlessly for your failure to adopt a particular moral belief at an earlier time. If we admit this possibility, then we need to propitiate every imaginable omnipotent being, just in case.

Amen and I would spit in its eye.