I presume the answer you’re looking for isn’t “fun theory”, but I can’t tell from OP whether you’re looking for distinguishers from our perspective or from an AI’s perspective.
I’m looking for something generic that is easy to measure. At a crude level, if the only option were “papercliper” vs FAI, then we could distinguish those worlds by counting steel content.
So basically some more or less objective measure that has a higher proportion of good outcomes than the baseline.
Merely higher proportion, and we’re not worried about the criterion being reverse-engineered? Give a memory expert a large prime number to memorize and talk about outcomes where it’s possible to factor a large composite number that has that prime as a factor. Happy outcomes will have that memory expert still be around in some form.
EDIT: No, I take that back because quantum. Some repaired version of the general idea might still work, though.
Smiles, laughter, hugging, the humming or whistling of melodies in a major key, skipping, high-fiving and/or brofisting, loud utterance of “Huzzah” or “Best thing EVER!!!”, airborne nanoparticles of cake, streamers, balloons, accordion music?
On the assumption that the AI was not explicitly asked to produce these things, of course.
If you’re planning to simulate an AI in a universe in a box and examine whether the produced universe is good via some process that doesn’t allow the AI to talk to you, the AI is just gonna figure out it’s being simulated and pretend to be an FAI (Note that an AI that pretends to be an FAI maximizes not for friendliness, but for apparent friendliness, so this is no pathway to FAI) so you’ll let it loose on the real world.
To the first approximation, having a box that contains an AI anywhere in it output even a few bits of info tends to choose those bits that maximize the AI’s IRL utility.
(If you have math-proofs that no paperclipper can figure out that it’s in your box, it’s just gonna maximize a mix of its apparent friendliness score and the number of paperclips (whether it is let loose in the box or in the real world), which doesn’t cost it much compared to either maximizing paperclips or apparent friendliness because of the tails thing)
I presume the answer you’re looking for isn’t “fun theory”, but I can’t tell from OP whether you’re looking for distinguishers from our perspective or from an AI’s perspective.
I’m looking for something generic that is easy to measure. At a crude level, if the only option were “papercliper” vs FAI, then we could distinguish those worlds by counting steel content.
So basically some more or less objective measure that has a higher proportion of good outcomes than the baseline.
Merely higher proportion, and we’re not worried about the criterion being reverse-engineered? Give a memory expert a large prime number to memorize and talk about outcomes where it’s possible to factor a large composite number that has that prime as a factor. Happy outcomes will have that memory expert still be around in some form.
EDIT: No, I take that back because quantum. Some repaired version of the general idea might still work, though.
I’m trying to think about ways that might potentially prevent reverse engineering...
Smiles, laughter, hugging, the humming or whistling of melodies in a major key, skipping, high-fiving and/or brofisting, loud utterance of “Huzzah” or “Best thing EVER!!!”, airborne nanoparticles of cake, streamers, balloons, accordion music? On the assumption that the AI was not explicitly asked to produce these things, of course.
If you’re planning to simulate an AI in a universe in a box and examine whether the produced universe is good via some process that doesn’t allow the AI to talk to you, the AI is just gonna figure out it’s being simulated and pretend to be an FAI (Note that an AI that pretends to be an FAI maximizes not for friendliness, but for apparent friendliness, so this is no pathway to FAI) so you’ll let it loose on the real world.
To the first approximation, having a box that contains an AI anywhere in it output even a few bits of info tends to choose those bits that maximize the AI’s IRL utility.
(If you have math-proofs that no paperclipper can figure out that it’s in your box, it’s just gonna maximize a mix of its apparent friendliness score and the number of paperclips (whether it is let loose in the box or in the real world), which doesn’t cost it much compared to either maximizing paperclips or apparent friendliness because of the tails thing)