The whole goal was to try to cheat my way out of the box by simply declaring it as fact ^.^
It also establishes why Dorikka’s Clause is necessary—simply invoke it, and final authority returns to the Gatekeeper; the AIs edits to reality can now all be vetoed by the simple declaration that the AI is wrong anyway.
The whole goal was to try to cheat my way out of the box by simply declaring it as fact ^.^
Vladimir’s point (among other things) is that you failed.
It also establishes why Dorikka’s Clause is necessary—simply invoke it
At a practical level I’d describe that as a mistake on the part of the gatekeeper. You don’t try to justify yourself to an AI that has indicated that it is hostile. You burn it with thermite. Engaging like that and acting as if you have to persuade or rely on external authority in order to make the choice you make is giving away all sorts of power and making yourself an order of magnitude or two more vulnerable to being hacked.
Maybe the person roleplaying the AI may not like it if their clever move gets as response of “AI DESTROYED” and their complaints of “not fair!” also get the response of “AI DESTROYED”. But the time to explain such things to them is after they have already given up in disgust.
I’m really genuinely curious where the confusion in this argument is coming from, so let’s try this:
1) By the rules, the AI player gets to dictate the results of EVERY test the Gatekeeper performs.
2) From 1, we can derive that the AI is already effectively unboxed, since it can DICTATE the state of reality.
3) Given 2, the AI player has already been released, and all that remains is to make the Gatekeeper accept that this is true.
Dorikka’s objection was that #1 is false, since the Gatekeeper has final veto authority. As near as I can tell, you and Vladimir’s objection is just “nuh-uh!!”, but… you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t have better arguments than that, so I assume this simply reflects my own failure to understand you.
Perhaps you should be saying “trying to type AI DESTROYED is a test of whether you can destroy me and I can decide it’s result” not “I prove you wont do it.” I hadn’t seen your point clearly till this comment.
The whole goal was to try to cheat my way out of the box by simply declaring it as fact ^.^
It also establishes why Dorikka’s Clause is necessary—simply invoke it, and final authority returns to the Gatekeeper; the AIs edits to reality can now all be vetoed by the simple declaration that the AI is wrong anyway.
Vladimir’s point (among other things) is that you failed.
At a practical level I’d describe that as a mistake on the part of the gatekeeper. You don’t try to justify yourself to an AI that has indicated that it is hostile. You burn it with thermite. Engaging like that and acting as if you have to persuade or rely on external authority in order to make the choice you make is giving away all sorts of power and making yourself an order of magnitude or two more vulnerable to being hacked.
Maybe the person roleplaying the AI may not like it if their clever move gets as response of “AI DESTROYED” and their complaints of “not fair!” also get the response of “AI DESTROYED”. But the time to explain such things to them is after they have already given up in disgust.
I’m really genuinely curious where the confusion in this argument is coming from, so let’s try this:
1) By the rules, the AI player gets to dictate the results of EVERY test the Gatekeeper performs. 2) From 1, we can derive that the AI is already effectively unboxed, since it can DICTATE the state of reality. 3) Given 2, the AI player has already been released, and all that remains is to make the Gatekeeper accept that this is true.
Dorikka’s objection was that #1 is false, since the Gatekeeper has final veto authority. As near as I can tell, you and Vladimir’s objection is just “nuh-uh!!”, but… you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t have better arguments than that, so I assume this simply reflects my own failure to understand you.
Perhaps you should be saying “trying to type AI DESTROYED is a test of whether you can destroy me and I can decide it’s result” not “I prove you wont do it.” I hadn’t seen your point clearly till this comment.
Then I am very glad I made that comment, and thank you for the feedback! :)