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.

accolade comments on I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost) - Less Wrong Discussion

47 Post author: Tuxedage 21 January 2013 02:59AM

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

Comments (244)

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

Comment author: accolade 21 January 2013 02:48:09PM 4 points [-]

I don't get the hint. Would you care to give another hint, or disclose your hypothesis?

Comment author: [deleted] 21 January 2013 07:36:55PM 0 points [-]

Gur erny-jbeyq fgnxrf jrera'g gung uvtu (gra qbyynef), naq gur fpurqhyrq qhengvba bs gur rkcrevzrag jnf dhvgr ybat (gjb ubhef), fb V jnf jbaqrevat vs znlor gur tngrxrrcre cynlre ng fbzr cbvag qrpvqrq gung gurl unq n orggre jnl gb fcraq gurve gvzr va erny yvsr naq pbaprqrq qrsrng.

Comment author: accolade 22 January 2013 10:47:58AM *  3 points [-]

[TL;DR keywords in bold]

I find your hypothesis implausible: The game was not about the ten dollars, it was about a question that was highly important to AGI research, including the Gatekeeper players. If that was not enough reason for them to sit through 2 hours of playing, they would probably have anticipated that and not played, instead of publicly boasting that there's no way they would be convinced.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 January 2013 05:33:27PM 0 points [-]

Maybe they changed their mind about that halfway through (and they were particularly resistant to the sunk cost effect). I agree that's not very likely, though (probability < 10%).

(BTW, the emphasis looks random to me. I'm not a native speaker, but if I was saying that sentence aloud in that context, the words I'd stress definitely mostly wouldn't be those ones.)

Comment author: accolade 22 January 2013 07:50:08PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for the feedback on the bold formatting! It was supposed to highlight keywords, sort of a TL;DR. But as that is not clear, I shall state it explicitly.

Comment author: accolade 22 January 2013 10:42:46AM *  -1 points [-]

Jung vf guvf tvoorevfu lbh'er jevgvat V pna'g ernq nal bs vg‽

@downvoters: no funny? :) Should I delete this?