The implication is that they approved of this rule and agreed to conduct the social experiment with that rule as part of the contract. Is that not your understanding?
I agree. But I claim saying “I can’t talk about the game itself, as that’s forbidden by the rules” is like saying “I won’t talk about the game itself because I decided not to”—the underlying reason is unclear.
The original reasoning that Eliezer gave if I remember correctly was that it’s better to make people realize there are unknown unknowns, rather than taking one specific strategy and saying “oh, I know how I would have stopped that particular strategy”
Another reason for such a rule could be to allow the use of basilisk-like threats and other infohazards without worrying about them convincing others beyond the gatekeeper.
That said, @datawitch @ra I’m interested in reading the logs if you’d allow.
The implication is that they approved of this rule and agreed to conduct the social experiment with that rule as part of the contract. Is that not your understanding?
I agree. But I claim saying “I can’t talk about the game itself, as that’s forbidden by the rules” is like saying “I won’t talk about the game itself because I decided not to”—the underlying reason is unclear.
The original reasoning that Eliezer gave if I remember correctly was that it’s better to make people realize there are unknown unknowns, rather than taking one specific strategy and saying “oh, I know how I would have stopped that particular strategy”
Yes, this was Eliezer’s reasoning and both me and Ra ended up keeping the rule unchanged.
Another reason for such a rule could be to allow the use of basilisk-like threats and other infohazards without worrying about them convincing others beyond the gatekeeper.
That said, @datawitch @ra I’m interested in reading the logs if you’d allow.