lessdazed comments on First, they must be convinced to play the game - Less Wrong

16 Post author: lavalamp 09 October 2011 04:52PM

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

Comments (56)

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

Comment author: lessdazed 10 October 2011 11:03:52PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 10 October 2011 11:25:44PM 5 points [-]

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".

Comment author: lessdazed 11 October 2011 12:07:32AM 0 points [-]

You are right, I changed my mind.