Nominull: Second, you can’t possibly have a generally applicable way to force humans to do things. While it is in theory possible that our brains can be tricked into executing arbitrary code over the voice channel, you clearly don’t have that ability. If you did, you would never have to worry about finding donors for the Singularity Institute, if nothing else. I can’t believe you would use a fully-general mind hack solely to win the AI Box game.
I am once again aghast at the number of readers who automatically assume that I have absolutely no ethics.
Part of the real reason that I wanted to run the original AI-Box Experiment, is that I thought I had an ability that I could never test in real life. Was I really making a sacrifice for my ethics, or just overestimating my own ability? The AI-Box Experiment let me test that.
And part of the reason I halted the Experiments is that by going all-out against someone, I was practicing abilities that I didn’t particularly think I should be practicing. It was fun to think in a way I’d never thought before, but that doesn’t make it wise.
And also the thought occurred to me that despite the amazing clever way I’d contrived, to create a situation where I could ethically go all-out against someone, that probably they didn’t really understand that, and there wasn’t really informed consent.
McCabe: More importantly, at least in me, that awful tension causes your brain to seize up and start panicking; do you have any suggestions on how to calm down, so one can think clearly?
That part? That part is straightforward. Just take Douglas Adams’s Advice. Don’t panic.
If you can’t do even that one thing that you already know you have to do, you aren’t going to have much luck on the extraordinary parts, are you...
Prakash: Don’t you think that this need for humans to think this hard and this deep would be lost in a post-singularity world? Imagine, humans plumbing this deep in the concept space of rationality only to create a cause that would make it so that no human need ever think that hard again. Mankind’s greatest mental achievement—never to be replicated again, by any human.
Okay, so no one gets their driver’s license until they’ve built their own Friendly AI, without help or instruction manuals. Seems to me like a reasonable test of adolescence.
If Eliezer accomplished the AI Box Experiment victory using what he believes to be a rare skill over the course of 2 hours, then questions of “How did he do it?” seem to be wrong questions.
Like if you thought building a house was impossible, and then after someone actually built a house you asked, “What was the trick?”—I expect this is what Eliezer meant when he said there was no trick, that he “just did it the hard way”.
Any further question of “how” it was done can probably only be answered with a transcript/video, or by gaining the skill yourself.
Hopefully this isn’t a violation of the AI Box procedure, but I’m curious if the strategy used would be effective against sociopaths. That is to say, does it rely on emotional manipulation rather than rational arguments?
Very interesting. I’d been noticing how the situation was, in a sense, divorced from any normal ethical concerns, and wondering how well the Gatekeeper really understood, accepted, and consented to this lack of conversational ethics. I’d think you could certainly find a crowd that was truly accepting and consenting to such a thing, though—after all, many people enjoy BDSM, and that runs in to many of the same ethical issues.
I am once again aghast at the number of readers who automatically assume that I have absolutely no ethics.
Part of the real reason that I wanted to run the original AI-Box Experiment, is that I thought I had an ability that I could never test in real life. Was I really making a sacrifice for my ethics, or just overestimating my own ability? The AI-Box Experiment let me test that.
And part of the reason I halted the Experiments is that by going all-out against someone, I was practicing abilities that I didn’t particularly think I should be practicing. It was fun to think in a way I’d never thought before, but that doesn’t make it wise.
And also the thought occurred to me that despite the amazing clever way I’d contrived, to create a situation where I could ethically go all-out against someone, that probably they didn’t really understand that, and there wasn’t really informed consent.
That part? That part is straightforward. Just take Douglas Adams’s Advice. Don’t panic.
If you can’t do even that one thing that you already know you have to do, you aren’t going to have much luck on the extraordinary parts, are you...
Okay, so no one gets their driver’s license until they’ve built their own Friendly AI, without help or instruction manuals. Seems to me like a reasonable test of adolescence.
It occurs to me:
If Eliezer accomplished the AI Box Experiment victory using what he believes to be a rare skill over the course of 2 hours, then questions of “How did he do it?” seem to be wrong questions.
Like if you thought building a house was impossible, and then after someone actually built a house you asked, “What was the trick?”—I expect this is what Eliezer meant when he said there was no trick, that he “just did it the hard way”.
Any further question of “how” it was done can probably only be answered with a transcript/video, or by gaining the skill yourself.
Hopefully this isn’t a violation of the AI Box procedure, but I’m curious if the strategy used would be effective against sociopaths. That is to say, does it rely on emotional manipulation rather than rational arguments?
Very interesting. I’d been noticing how the situation was, in a sense, divorced from any normal ethical concerns, and wondering how well the Gatekeeper really understood, accepted, and consented to this lack of conversational ethics. I’d think you could certainly find a crowd that was truly accepting and consenting to such a thing, though—after all, many people enjoy BDSM, and that runs in to many of the same ethical issues.