The AI should never try to do something elaborately horrible, because it can get max utility easily enough from inside the simulation
...but never do anything useful either, since it's going to spend all its time trying to figure out how to reach the INT_MAX utility point?
Or you could say that reaching the max utility point requires it to solve some problem we give it. But then this is just a slightly complicated way of saying that we give it goals which it tries to accomplish.
What about giving it some intra-sandbox goal (solve this math problem), and the INT_MAX functions as a safeguard - if it ever escapes, it'll just turn itself off.
At the recent London meet-up someone (I'm afraid I can't remember who) suggested that one might be able to solve the Friendly AI problem by building an AI whose concerns are limited to some small geographical area, and which doesn't give two hoots about what happens outside that area. Cipergoth pointed out that this would probably result in the AI converting the rest of the universe into a factory to make its small area more awesome. In the process, he mentioned that you can make a "fun game" out of figuring out ways in which proposed utility functions for Friendly AIs can go horribly wrong. I propose that we play.
Here's the game: reply to this post with proposed utility functions, stated as formally or, at least, as accurately as you can manage; follow-up comments explain why a super-human intelligence built with that particular utility function would do things that turn out to be hideously undesirable.
There are three reasons I suggest playing this game. In descending order of importance, they are: