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.

V_V 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: V_V 22 January 2013 01:38:42PM -2 points [-]

So you are basically saying that you didn't take the game seriously.

Even if your actual stakes were low, you should have played the role of a gatekeeper assigned to the task of guarding a potentially dangerous AI. Therefore, you player character should have had very high stakes.

Comment author: falenas108 22 January 2013 02:59:29PM 4 points [-]

No, high in-game stakes does not mean high out of game stakes.

In game, the gatekeeper could be convinced that it would be worth it to let the AI out of the box. If this happens, the gatekeeper has no motivation not to. However, if there is an external bet, then the gatekeeper always has motivation to not let the AI out, even if they think it would be best for the hypothetical world.

So, a game without stakes is actually most realistic, provided the gatekeeper is able to pretend they are actually in the scenario.

Comment author: V_V 22 January 2013 08:40:45PM 0 points [-]

Well, in-game, the gatekeeper has no reason to believe anything the AI could promise or threaten.