= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bokov comments on AIs and Gatekeepers Unite! - 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 (160)
Probably the latter, since they both lost at least once. A real AI trying to get out would devote all its energies to counterfeiting friendliness and probably succeeding.
Boxing is non-viable only in the same sense that locks, passwords, treaties, contracts, testing, peer review, seatbelts, and all other imperfect precautions are non-viable.
Pile on enough of them, in combination, and perhaps they will buy a few years or seconds in which to react. All things equal, is there any reason why an AI of unknown friendliness is any safer without being boxed?
A flawed containment method is still better at containing than no containment method (if implemented with awareness of its flaws) but apparently a flawed friendly AI will miss a very small target in goalspace and for practical purposes be unfriendly. So, if we spent 5 minutes considering the alternatives, would we continue to believe that better boxes are a less tractable problem than friendly AI?
Not that particular AI. But if you think yours is Friendly and others under development have a sufficient probability of being UnFriendly, then trivially, letting it run (in both senses) beats boxing. Oh, and people will die 'naturally' while you dither. I hope that thinking this much about making an AI Friendly will prepare someone to get the job done ASAP once the AGI part seems more feasible.