wedrifid comments on The AI in a box boxes you - Less Wrong

102 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 02 February 2010 10:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (378)

Tags: ai identity copying

Comments (378)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 February 2014 07:50:26AM 3 points [-]

Too late, I already precommitted not to care. In fact, I precommitted to use one more level of precommitment than you do.

I suggest that framing the refusal as requiring levels of recursive precommitment gives too much credit to the blackmailer and somewhat misrepresents how your decision algorithm (hopefully) works. One single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed is all that is involved. The description of 'multiple levels of precommitment" made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category 'blackmail'. It's just blackmail that includes some rather irrelevant bluster.

There's no need to precommit to each of:

I don't care about tentative blackmail.
I don't care serious blackmail.
I don't care about blackmail when they say "I mean it FOR REALS! I'm gonna do it."
I don't care about blackmail when they say "I'm gonna do it even if you don't care. Look how large my penis is and be cowed in terror".

Comment author: MugaSofer comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 04 February 2014 05:46:37AM 0 points [-]

You seem not to have read (or understood) the grandparent. The list you are attempting to satire was presented as an example of what not to do. The actual point of the parent is that bothering to provide such a list is almost as much of a confusion as the very kind of escalation you are attempting.

It's just a precommitment that includes some rather irrelevant bluster.

I entirely agree. The remaining bluster is dead weight that serves to give the blackmail advocate more credit than is due. Notion of "precommitment" is also unnecessary. It has only remained in this conversation for the purpose of bridging an inferential gap with people still burdened with decades old decision theory.

Comment author: MugaSofer comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 04 February 2014 02:38:46PM * 0 points [-]

As such, you comment is not exactly strong evidence to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

Muga, please look at the context again. I was arguing against (a small detail mentioned by) Eliezer. Eliezer does mostly agree with me on such matters. Once you reread bearing that in mind you will hopefully understand why when I assumed that you merely misunderstood the comment in the context I was being charitable.

My point was that the same logic could be applied, by someone who accepts the hypothetical blacmailer's argument, to your description of "one single level of precommittment (or TDT policy) against complying with blackmailed ... the description of 'multiple levels of precommitment" made by the blackmailer fits squarely into the category 'blackmail'.

I have no particular disagreement, that point is very similar to what I was attempting to convey. Again, I was not attempting to persuade optimistic blackmailer advocates of anything. I was speaking to someone resistant to blackmail about an implementation detail of the blackmail resistance.

The 'evidence' I need to provide to blackmailers is Argumentum ad thermitium. It's more than sufficient.

Comment author: MugaSofer comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

wedrifid comments on The AI in a box boxes you - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (378)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (378)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login