You could do a prisoners’ dilemma mini game. The human player and (say) three computer players are AI companies. Each company independently decides how much risk to take of ending the world by creating an unaligned AI. The more risk you take relative to the other players the higher your score if the world doesn’t end. In the game’s last round, the chance of the world being destroyed is determined by how much risk everyone took.
Isn’t that begging the question? If the goal is to teach why being optimistic is dangerous, declaring by fiat that an unaligned AI ends the world skips the whole “teaching” part of a game.
You could do a prisoners’ dilemma mini game. The human player and (say) three computer players are AI companies. Each company independently decides how much risk to take of ending the world by creating an unaligned AI. The more risk you take relative to the other players the higher your score if the world doesn’t end. In the game’s last round, the chance of the world being destroyed is determined by how much risk everyone took.
Isn’t that begging the question? If the goal is to teach why being optimistic is dangerous, declaring by fiat that an unaligned AI ends the world skips the whole “teaching” part of a game.
Yes, it doesn’t establish why it’s inherently dangerous but does help explain a key challenge to coordinating to reduce the danger.
I really like that and it happens to fit well with the narrative that we’re developing. I’ll see where we can include a scene like this.
Excellent. I would be happy to help. I teach game theory at Smith College.