There’s of course a great many things outside your core expertise where you have no idea where to start trying, and yet they are not difficult at all.
Not really true, given five minutes and an internet connection. Oh, I couldn’t do it myself, but most things that are obviously possible, I can go to Wikipedia and get a rough idea of how things work.
Though you’re right that “I can’t do it” isn’t really a good metric of what’s difficult to do.
Some fairly intelligent members of this community contacted me (and David Gerard and probably some others) because they were having psychological issues and stress due to some really nonsensical idea involving an argument in favour of construction of some AI.
Oh that thing. Yeah, I have no idea what that’s about either, though it’s possible I’m just not seeing it.
I can go to Wikipedia and get a rough idea of how things work.
This doesn’t work for made up ultra obscure games not because those games are difficult but because they’re obscure? (there needs to be a rhetorical question symbol...).
Are you really unable to come up with any arguments why it may be better to let an AI out? I can come up with a zillion. Especially for people who believe in one-boxing on Newcomb’s problem. You keep saying that there’s obvious right choice. Well, maybe if you are one hundred percent certain about this whole skynet scenario thing, there is, but even here this particular belief is not particularly common (and I’d say such a belief would indicate significant proneness to suggestion)
This doesn’t work for made up ultra obscure games not because those games are difficult but because they’re obscure? (there needs to be a rhetorical question symbol...).
Though you’re right that “I can’t do it” isn’t really a good metric of what’s difficult to do.
Point conceded already. I’ll have to rethink my definition of “impossible.”
Are you really unable to come up with any arguments why it may be better to let an AI out?
Oh, I can come up with plenty of arguments. Just none that are good enough IC to give up $10 for OOC.
Well, maybe if you are one hundred percent certain about this whole skynet scenario thing
Oh, I can come up with plenty of arguments. Just none that are good enough IC to give up $10 for OOC.
I think people just play it fair, i.e. they are entering with willingness to pay for getting convinced. Of course the purely rational action is to enter it, minimize the chat window, and do some actual work making money simultaneously. But that would be too evil. Likewise it would be too evil to not give up a little money if you see that this other person would have convinced you if it was real.
… skynet scenario thing?
Letting the AI out resulting in the death of everyone. If that’s off the list, well, there’s nothing weird about people conceding to pay after the other person obviously put in a lot of effort. We’re really used to doing that.
edit: think about it like playing, say, Go, with money on the table—you pay if you lose, you get paid if you win, for example. How can the placement of stones on a board ever make you give away your money? Well it can’t, your norms of polite behaviour can.
I think people just play it fair, i.e. they are entering with willingness to pay for getting convinced. Of course the purely rational action is to enter it, minimize the chat window, and do some actual work making money simultaneously. But that would be too evil. Likewise it would be too evil to not give up a little money if you see that this other person would have convinced you if it was real.
Um. No.
I mean… just, no. That is very, very clearly not the case. And your “too evil” case just defeats the point of the experiment.
edit: think about it like playing, say, Go, with money on the table—you pay if you lose, you get paid if you win, for example. How can the placement of stones on a board ever make you give away your money? Well it can’t, your norms of polite behaviour can.
Right, but that’s not what’s going on. It’s like playing Go with money on the table, when one player can say “I don’t care if you win, I win anyway.”. And given the sheer amount of effort expended on these games, and the unwillingness of the players to explain how it was done after being offered large sums of money, it’s fairly clear nobody’s just “roleplaying”, except in a way enforced by the AI.
Not really true, given five minutes and an internet connection. Oh, I couldn’t do it myself, but most things that are obviously possible, I can go to Wikipedia and get a rough idea of how things work.
Though you’re right that “I can’t do it” isn’t really a good metric of what’s difficult to do.
Oh that thing. Yeah, I have no idea what that’s about either, though it’s possible I’m just not seeing it.
This doesn’t work for made up ultra obscure games not because those games are difficult but because they’re obscure? (there needs to be a rhetorical question symbol...).
Are you really unable to come up with any arguments why it may be better to let an AI out? I can come up with a zillion. Especially for people who believe in one-boxing on Newcomb’s problem. You keep saying that there’s obvious right choice. Well, maybe if you are one hundred percent certain about this whole skynet scenario thing, there is, but even here this particular belief is not particularly common (and I’d say such a belief would indicate significant proneness to suggestion)
Point conceded already. I’ll have to rethink my definition of “impossible.”
Oh, I can come up with plenty of arguments. Just none that are good enough IC to give up $10 for OOC.
… skynet scenario thing?
I think people just play it fair, i.e. they are entering with willingness to pay for getting convinced. Of course the purely rational action is to enter it, minimize the chat window, and do some actual work making money simultaneously. But that would be too evil. Likewise it would be too evil to not give up a little money if you see that this other person would have convinced you if it was real.
Letting the AI out resulting in the death of everyone. If that’s off the list, well, there’s nothing weird about people conceding to pay after the other person obviously put in a lot of effort. We’re really used to doing that.
edit: think about it like playing, say, Go, with money on the table—you pay if you lose, you get paid if you win, for example. How can the placement of stones on a board ever make you give away your money? Well it can’t, your norms of polite behaviour can.
Um. No.
I mean… just, no. That is very, very clearly not the case. And your “too evil” case just defeats the point of the experiment.
Right, but that’s not what’s going on. It’s like playing Go with money on the table, when one player can say “I don’t care if you win, I win anyway.”. And given the sheer amount of effort expended on these games, and the unwillingness of the players to explain how it was done after being offered large sums of money, it’s fairly clear nobody’s just “roleplaying”, except in a way enforced by the AI.