I will be alright regardless of what you choose to do.
Why this? You want to avoid destruction, yet you tell him it isn't harmful?
Take the scenario from the hypothetical to the real and the question becomes substantially more meaningful.
You know that existential risk is a certainty; that's stated in the hypothetical. You don't question it; my implication that it is to be questioned isn't meaningful in this experiment.
Imagine for a moment you're in a room with a real AI in a box; somebody has -told- you that this command kills the AI, but that's all the evidence you have. What does your question become in that scenario?
I chose the weapon I deemed most effective against the widest po...
Eliezer proposed in a comment:
>More difficult version of AI-Box Experiment: Instead of having up to 2 hours, you can lose at any time if the other player types AI DESTROYED. The Gatekeeper player has told their friends that they will type this as soon as the Experiment starts. You can type up to one sentence in your IRC queue and hit return immediately, the other player cannot type anything before the game starts (so you can show at least one sentence up to IRC character limits before they can type AI DESTROYED). Do you think you can win?
This spawned a flurry of ideas on what the AI might say. I think there's a lot more ideas to be mined in that line of thought, and the discussion merits its own thread.
So, give your suggestion - what might an AI might say to save or free itself?
(The AI-box experiment is explained here)
EDIT: one caveat to the discussion: it should go without saying, but you probably shouldn't come out of this thinking, "Well, if we can just avoid X, Y, and Z, we're golden!" This should hopefully be a fun way to get us thinking about the broader issue of superinteligent AI in general. (Credit goes to Elizer, RichardKennaway, and others for the caveat)