gjm 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: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 January 2013 12:56:34AM 9 points [-]

Yeah, they'd both lack background knowledge to RP the conversation and would also, I presume, be much less willing to lose the money than if they'd ventured the bet themselves. Higher-stakes games are hard enough already (I was 1 for 3 on those when I called a halt). And if it did work against that demographic with unsolicited requests (which would surprise me) then there would be, cough, certain ethical issues.

Comment author: gjm 22 January 2013 01:45:58PM 6 points [-]

Higher-stakes games are hard enough already

Doesn't this suggest a serious discrepancy between the AI-box game and any possible future AI-box reality? After all, the stakes for the latter would be pretty damn high.

Comment author: CarlShulman 22 January 2013 08:19:39PM 5 points [-]

Yes. Although that's something of a two-edged sword: in addition to real disincentives to release an AI that was not supposed to be, positive incentives would also be real.

Also it should be noted that I continue to be supportive of the idea of boxing/capacity controls of some kinds for autonomous AGI (they would work better with only modestly superintelligent systems, but seem cheap and potentially helpful for an even wider range), as does most everyone I have talked to about it at SI and FHI. The boxing game is fun, and provides a bit of evidence, but it doesn't indicate that "boxing," especially understood broadly, is useless.