Qiaochu_Yuan comments on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Tuxedage 21 January 2013 02:59AM

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

Comments (244)

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

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 22 January 2013 10:28:42AM *  4 points [-]

I really wanted to fake the experiment in order to convince people about the dangers of failing gatekeepers, wouldn't it be better for me to say I had won? After all, I lost this experiment.

If you really had faked this experiment, you might have settled on a lie which is not maximally beneficial to you, and then you might use exactly this argument to convince people that you're not lying. I don't know if this tactic has a name, but it should. I've used it when playing Mafia, for example; as Mafia, I once attempted to lie about being the Detective (who I believe was dead at the time), and to do so convincingly I sold out one of the other members of the Mafia.

Comment author: FluffyC 22 January 2013 06:45:23PM *  1 point [-]

I don't know if this tactic has a name, but it should.

I've heard it called "Wine In Front Of Me" after the scene in The Princess Bride.

That Scene

Comment author: [deleted] 22 January 2013 12:13:02PM *  0 points [-]

If you really had faked this experiment, you might have settled on a lie which is not maximally beneficial to you, and then you might use exactly this argument to convince people that you're not lying.

In this venue, you shouldn't say things like this without giving your estimate for P(fail|fake) / P(fail).

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 22 January 2013 12:36:01PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "fail." Can you clarify what probabilities you want me to estimate?

Comment author: ESRogs 22 January 2013 08:10:47PM 1 point [-]

P(claims to have lost | faked experiment) / P(claims to have lost)

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 22 January 2013 11:12:19PM 0 points [-]

On the order of 1. I don't think it's strong evidence either way.

Comment author: accolade 22 January 2013 12:07:33PM *  0 points [-]

If the author assumes that most people would even put considerable (probabilistic) trust into his assertion of having won, he would not maximize his influence on general opinion by employing this bluff of stating he has almost won. This is amplified by the fact that the statement of an actual AI win is more viral.

Lying is further discouraged by the risk that the other party will sing.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 22 January 2013 12:39:25PM *  0 points [-]

Agree that lying is discouraged by the risk that the other party will sing, but lying - especially in a way that isn't maximally beneficial - is encouraged by the prevalence of arguments that bad lies are unlikely. The game theory of bad lies seems like it could get pretty complicated.