= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Silver_Swift comments on What can go wrong with the following protocol for AI containment? - 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 (29)
The rest of your posting is about how to interact with it.
Interaction is far broader than just conversation. If you can affect it and it can affect you, that's interaction. If you're going to have no interaction, you might as well not have created it; any method of getting answers from it about your questions is interacting with it. The moment it suspects what it going on, it can start trying to play you, to get out of the box.
This is a really bad argument for safety. It's what the scientist says of his creation in sci-fi B-movies, shortly before the monster/plague/AI/alien/nanogoo escapes.
To be fair, all interactions described happen after the AI has been terminated, which does put up an additional barrier for the AI to get out of the box. It would have to convince you to restart it without being able to react to your responses (apart from those it could predict in advance) and then it still has to convince you to let it out of the box.
Obviously, putting up additional barriers isn't the way to go and this particular barrier is not as impenetrable for the AI as it might seem to a human, but still, it couldn't hurt.