= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on AI box: AI has one shot at avoiding destruction - what might it say? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (354)
And that subset was a demonstration that an unfriendly AI is unlikely be containable even if the communication channel is text-only.
Of course completely isolating an AI is senseless. My (poorly expressed) point was that an AGI can probably get out regardless of the communication channel provided. Since we cannot go through all possible communication channels, I suggested that we simply block all channels and demonstrate that it can get out anyway. This would require someone designing a containment setup and someone else pointing out flaws in it. Security professionals do that every day.
Yes, but their constraints are based on the real world, whereas this one has a God-like AI which can gain control of a satellite by hacking the electrical system and then using the solar panels as sails... you've sort of assumed AI victory, and you've even stated this explicitly.
I see some benefit to a few quick examples like that, but I can't see how it's anything but tedious to keep going once you've established it can hijack the satellite and then mind control the ISS using morse code.
There's nothing to learn, since the answer is always "The AI wins", and you can replace the human player with a rock and get the same result. Games where one player can be replaced with a rock aren't fun! :)