= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stuart_Armstrong comments on Reduced impact AI: no back channels - 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 (41)
I just read through the comments, and no-one seems to have said this yet. So either I missed something in the OP or it was just too obvious to mention? Regardless:
How is this elaborate proposal superior to bog-standard AI boxing?
Why bother to write in an elaborate function telling it not to affect the outside world except through a channel, when you could simply only give it one channel? It can either escape through the specified channel, or it can't. Whether the channel is connected to an airgapped computer running the AI or an unlocked cell containing a sophisticated robot running the AI seems immaterial.
The example of the laser co-ordinates is relatively secure, although it might be possible to do stuff with your one shot - the situation isn't that clearly specified because it's unrealistic in any case. But that's a property of the output mechanism, not the AI design. Isn't it?
For the moment, there is little difference between a really well boxed AI and a reduced impact one (though consider the "a few extra paperclips" AI). But this is an epistemic boxing, not a physical one, which is interesting/useful, and the idea may develop into something more.