You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

dbaupp comments on [Link] A Short Film based on Eliezer Yudkowsky's AI Box experiment - Less Wrong Discussion

9 [deleted] 07 December 2011 09:13PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: dbaupp 08 December 2011 04:12:06AM 3 points [-]

Are you suggesting that he should sue?

I can think of three main reasons to sue:

  • Some money or royalties
  • More acknowledgement for EY and/or SI in the final product
  • Guarding intellectual property

However, suing runs the risk of stopping the film being made/released, if the settlement is too large. If the film is made, and properly conveys the futility of trying to keep an AI boxed, then it has the potential to be good publicity for SI and (un)friendly AI research.

So, rather than sue, if SI were to take more of a supportive approach, encouraging the film, and (importantly) encouraging scientific accuracy, then they might be able to get a better result, beyond just a few dollars here or there (although the degree to which EY wants to control his IP could outweigh this; however, most of his work on his website is under a Creative Commons license, which suggests this might not be a problem).

Also, SI can probably get EY/SI to feature more prominently in the credits/on the website by taking a (small) advisory role in the film. (It could be part of their public outreach program...)

Comment author: Alejandro1 08 December 2011 04:36:07AM 3 points [-]

If the sole objective is to make the film and its contents widely known, it is possible that the optimal strategy is to sue with a great show of scandal, exploiting deliberately the Streisand effect. Of course, the bad publicity for SI would likely outweigh the benefits.

Comment author: vi21maobk9vp 08 December 2011 04:47:33AM 4 points [-]

In the modern cynical world this means that you want to secretly hire someone to sue on the basis of insulting some not-really-existing religion, right? You get all the Streisand effect you want, and the blame goes to someone who doesn't even exist in the first place.

Comment author: SilasBarta 08 December 2011 06:15:08PM 0 points [-]

Are you suggesting that he should sue?

Mainly, I'm wondering about his exact tradeoff between (this kind of) publicity and money.