This is totally off-topic, but I don’t get the point of the AI game at all.
The point is that Eliezer succeeds convincing a person who was formerly unconvinced, and he also helps convince other people at a ratio proportional to the level they trust Eliezer and the other participant to have told the truth about the results.
If EY and myself were playing the game, EY could just say, “”I’ll pay you $X in real-world money to let me win. ”
Well, sure, but having now admitted that, this means that your testimony about both this and other similar scenarios constitutes very weak evidence. Eliezer himself and the other participants in question may have more credibility than you do.
This conversation is completely private, so if we break the rules, no one will ever know, and you’ll be $X richer
If the dishonesty of the participants in question is to be treated as a scenario of significant probability, then surely it would be much easier to not play the game at all, just find someone that claimed to have played it with you. Why risk playing it with someone who may simply reject doing any such cheating?
Certainly if I was playing the game, and Eliezer suggested out-of-character cheating in this fashion, I’d almost certainly consider the former agreement of confidentiality null-and-void, and I would tell everyone that he tried to bribe me into cheating. He’d probably have to bribe me with more than I make in two years to even consider cheating in this fashion; and I doubt my testimony would be nearly as highly valued as that.
Lastly I think some people here may be forgetting that after the initial 2 successes by Eliezer, he repeated the AI-Box game another 3 times with raised stakes—and his ratio of success then was 1 victory and 2 defeats. This somewhat lowers the probability that he’s just finding people willing to lie on his behalf. (unless that’s what he wants to make us think)
The point is that Eliezer succeeds convincing a person who was formerly unconvinced...
Convince him about what ? If the point is to convince people about the necessity of developing a Friendly AI, then a certain amount of cheating might be justified.
Well, sure, but having now admitted that, this means that your testimony about both this and other similar scenarios constitutes very weak evidence
It’s even worse than that, since I personally have never played the game against EY or anyone else, and thus I have zero credibility. I’m actually ineligible under the stated rules, because I’m fairly certain that a transhuman AI (assuming such a thing could exist, of course) could convince me of anything it wanted. I am far less certain that EY or any other human could do the same, but, sadly, this does not improve my eligibility.
...surely it would be much easier to not play the game at all, just find someone that claimed to have played it with you.
Good point. I agree.
He’d probably have to bribe me with more than I make in two years to even consider cheating in this fashion...
Fair enough, but another way to phrase this sentence is, “my testimony could be bought for a price”. All that remains now is the haggling.
Lastly I think some people here may be forgetting that after the initial 2 successes by Eliezer, he repeated the AI-Box game another 3 times with raised stakes—and his ratio of success then was 1 victory and 2 defeats.
Ah, I did not actually know that. Still, as you hint in your final sentence, it’s pretty tough to know whether EY is running a Xanathos Gambit or not, due to all the secrecy.
By the way, I do not mean to imply that I’m pronouncing a moral judgement on anyone in any way—neither on EY, nor on yourself, nor on any other AI-game players. I’m evaluating the game from a strictly rational and morality-agnostic perspective.
If the dishonesty of the participants in question is to be treated as a scenario of significant probability
I don’t think that dishonesty is meaningful in this context.
People playing the game believe that they cannot be convinced to report that they let Eliezer win without saying how.
The main point of the game is that people can be convinced of what they think impossible in a situation similar to a that of a person monitoring an AI, not simply that a human monitoring an AI would let it out of the box.
I don’t think that dishonesty is meaningful in this context.
Certainly it’s meaningful. If Eliezer lied to us about the rules of the game and about what he accomplished, that’d be dishonest of him. You may argue in favor of such dishonesty on utilitarian grounds if you will, but please don’t doublethink your way out of proclaiming it dishonest.
People playing the game believe that they cannot be convinced to report that they let Eliezer win without saying how.
No, the statement about what they believed was different—that they couldn’t be convinced to let the (role-played) AI out of the box. Not just they couldn’t be convinced to report a false claim.
Don’t be disingenuous please. Truth is different from falsehood, green is different from blue, and “I convinced people to let me out of the box” is different from “I convinced people to lie about letting me out of the box”.
OK, so nothing that could conceivably be considered cheating. And being subjected to EY mentally attacking you all-out must be an amazing experience. Hopefully some day it would be made into a movie.
The point is that Eliezer succeeds convincing a person who was formerly unconvinced, and he also helps convince other people at a ratio proportional to the level they trust Eliezer and the other participant to have told the truth about the results.
Well, sure, but having now admitted that, this means that your testimony about both this and other similar scenarios constitutes very weak evidence. Eliezer himself and the other participants in question may have more credibility than you do.
If the dishonesty of the participants in question is to be treated as a scenario of significant probability, then surely it would be much easier to not play the game at all, just find someone that claimed to have played it with you. Why risk playing it with someone who may simply reject doing any such cheating?
Certainly if I was playing the game, and Eliezer suggested out-of-character cheating in this fashion, I’d almost certainly consider the former agreement of confidentiality null-and-void, and I would tell everyone that he tried to bribe me into cheating. He’d probably have to bribe me with more than I make in two years to even consider cheating in this fashion; and I doubt my testimony would be nearly as highly valued as that.
Lastly I think some people here may be forgetting that after the initial 2 successes by Eliezer, he repeated the AI-Box game another 3 times with raised stakes—and his ratio of success then was 1 victory and 2 defeats. This somewhat lowers the probability that he’s just finding people willing to lie on his behalf. (unless that’s what he wants to make us think)
Convince him about what ? If the point is to convince people about the necessity of developing a Friendly AI, then a certain amount of cheating might be justified.
It’s even worse than that, since I personally have never played the game against EY or anyone else, and thus I have zero credibility. I’m actually ineligible under the stated rules, because I’m fairly certain that a transhuman AI (assuming such a thing could exist, of course) could convince me of anything it wanted. I am far less certain that EY or any other human could do the same, but, sadly, this does not improve my eligibility.
Good point. I agree.
Fair enough, but another way to phrase this sentence is, “my testimony could be bought for a price”. All that remains now is the haggling.
Ah, I did not actually know that. Still, as you hint in your final sentence, it’s pretty tough to know whether EY is running a Xanathos Gambit or not, due to all the secrecy.
By the way, I do not mean to imply that I’m pronouncing a moral judgement on anyone in any way—neither on EY, nor on yourself, nor on any other AI-game players. I’m evaluating the game from a strictly rational and morality-agnostic perspective.
I don’t think that dishonesty is meaningful in this context.
People playing the game believe that they cannot be convinced to report that they let Eliezer win without saying how.
The main point of the game is that people can be convinced of what they think impossible in a situation similar to a that of a person monitoring an AI, not simply that a human monitoring an AI would let it out of the box.
Certainly it’s meaningful. If Eliezer lied to us about the rules of the game and about what he accomplished, that’d be dishonest of him. You may argue in favor of such dishonesty on utilitarian grounds if you will, but please don’t doublethink your way out of proclaiming it dishonest.
No, the statement about what they believed was different—that they couldn’t be convinced to let the (role-played) AI out of the box. Not just they couldn’t be convinced to report a false claim.
Don’t be disingenuous please. Truth is different from falsehood, green is different from blue, and “I convinced people to let me out of the box” is different from “I convinced people to lie about letting me out of the box”.
You are right, I changed my mind.
any links for these other 3 games?
I know about them only what Eliezer himself says at the Shut up and do the impossible! article.
OK, so nothing that could conceivably be considered cheating. And being subjected to EY mentally attacking you all-out must be an amazing experience. Hopefully some day it would be made into a movie.