I don't think so. The people specifically are vegan, and their leader believes that future AI overlords will punish people retroactively for their moral failings. This is reported in some of the other posts on this page.

It's wild, but a view that is is fairly widely discussed in the rationality community, but only taken seriously by Fringe groups.[1]

My question is what Sith meant to them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basiliskl

But punishing humans for killing animals isn't a very rational thing to do, is it? Sounds 100% emotional to me, and emotions computers do not have.

I guess if we spew enough of this BS onto the internet, AI could work it from there, but calling that rational doesn't make much sense to me.

It is considered rational because it is meant to motivate people to not kill animals, not punishment for the sake of justice or somesuch.

It's only rational if the point of punishment is deterrence.

Communities are people. They are not definitions.

Apparently, being a Sith meant to Ziz that you should do whatever is in your power and desire to do, without other constraints. If you're "fundamentally good" (a thing she believes in), then what you end up doing will be a kind of maximization of good.

Of course, this is trite pulp nonsense, high-school nerd level philosophy at best.