I’m sorry, how is that relevant to my no-network-adapter comment? (I mean this literally, not rhetorically. I don’t see the connection. Did you mean to reply to a different comment?)
It’s the whole thread. I was not sure where to place my comment. The connection is, the network may not be the only source of “cheating”. My solutions plug them all in one fell swoop.
Oh, OK. In that case, what you are trying to achieve is (theoretically) boxing a (potential) AGI, without a gatekeeper. Which is kind of overkill in this case, and wouldn’t be solved with a choice of language anyway :)
I think it is possible to prove that a given boxing works, if it’s sufficiently simple. Choosing the language isn’t enough, but choosing the interpreter should be.
Take Brainfuck for instance: replace the dot (.″), which prints a character, by two other statements: one that prints “yes” and exits, and one that prints “no” and exits. If the interpreter has no bug, a program can only:
Print “yes” and kill itself.
Print “no” and kill itself.
Do nothing until we kill it, or otherwise fail.
Assuming the AI doesn’t control the external world by heating the host Intel processor in a smart way, we should be able to prove that we’re otherwise safe.
I’m sorry, how is that relevant to my no-network-adapter comment? (I mean this literally, not rhetorically. I don’t see the connection. Did you mean to reply to a different comment?)
It’s the whole thread. I was not sure where to place my comment. The connection is, the network may not be the only source of “cheating”. My solutions plug them all in one fell swoop.
Oh, OK. In that case, what you are trying to achieve is (theoretically) boxing a (potential) AGI, without a gatekeeper. Which is kind of overkill in this case, and wouldn’t be solved with a choice of language anyway :)
I think it is possible to prove that a given boxing works, if it’s sufficiently simple. Choosing the language isn’t enough, but choosing the interpreter should be.
Take Brainfuck for instance: replace the dot (
.″), which prints a character, by two other statements: one that prints “yes” and exits, and one that prints “no” and exits. If the interpreter has no bug, a program can only:Print “yes” and kill itself.
Print “no” and kill itself.
Do nothing until we kill it, or otherwise fail.
Assuming the AI doesn’t control the external world by heating the host Intel processor in a smart way, we should be able to prove that we’re otherwise safe.