= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JGWeissman comments on About the AI-Box experiment - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (14)
Eliezer has assured us that:
Further, you don't seem to actually understand the rules. Such as:
This rules out your approach of threatening the gatekeeper player.
That's my main problem with the whole test and other issues as well.
Eliezer has assured us that...
...bona fides.
I expect Smeagol told Deagol that he loved him. He may even have meant it.
I don't believe he used a super clever cheap trick. However, if lying was considered net beneficial to the future, Eliezer would do it.
He at least claims that he wouldn't, since if he was known to be willing to lie to save the world he couldn't be trusted whenever it is known to be at stake. http://lesswrong.com/lw/v2/prices_or_bindings/
No, it doesn’t rule it out. I can’t be rationally convinced of anything that went on in the chat until I see it.
Nor even if you do see it. After all, the possibility exists that you're being handed a fake chatlog.
Short of performing the experiment right in front of you, it's not clear what can rationally convince you, if your priors are low enough.
The details of the chats will not be publicly released. But if you want to maintain that you don't trust the results of the experiment because the gatekeeper players might have been confederates of Eliezer, then you should have said so. You claimed, however, that this clever trick was possible given the rules followed, and this claim was wrong.