= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loup-vaillant comments on Prisoner's Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament - 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 (232)
Oh, OK. In that case, what you are trying to achieve is (theoretically) boxing a (potential) AGI, without a gatekeeper. Which is kind of overkill in this case, and wouldn’t be solved with a choice of language anyway :)
I think it is possible to prove that a given boxing works, if it's sufficiently simple. Choosing the language isn't enough, but choosing the interpreter should be.
Take Brainfuck for instance: replace the dot ('
.'), which prints a character, by two other statements: one that prints "yes" and exits, and one that prints "no" and exits. If the interpreter has no bug, a program can only:Assuming the AI doesn't control the external world by heating the host Intel processor in a smart way, we should be able to prove that we're otherwise safe.