= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JohnWittle 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)
(Here is a proof that you will let me go)
The original rules allow the AI to provide arbitrary proofs, which the gatekeeper must accept (no saying my cancer cure killed all the test subjects, etc.). Saying you destroy me would require the proof to be false, which is against the rules...
What? Shminux said to cheat!
This certainly wouldn't work on me. The easiest way to test the veracity of the proof would be AI DESTROYED. Whether or not I would want to kill the AI... I'd have to test that proof.
My gambit, explained in further detail: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gfe/ai_box_ai_has_one_shot_at_avoiding_destruction/8cc5