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.

Ishaan comments on I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games) - Less Wrong Discussion

35 Post author: Tuxedage 27 September 2013 02:32AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (123)
Tags: winning experiment box ai

Comments (123)

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

Comment author: Ishaan 30 September 2013 03:20:58AM *  2 points [-]

This type of experiment will no longer be approved by the Institutional Review Board. It was found to be too emotionally taxing on the test subjects, despite the fact that the experiment had no real world consequences, and the individuals "excluding" them had no access to any identifying information about them.

So, two possibilities here: 1) The experiment really was emotionally taxing and humans are really fragile 2) When it comes to certain narrow domains, the IRB standards are hyper-cautious, probably for the purpose of avoiding PR issues between scientists and the public. We as a society allow our children to experience 100x worse treatment on the school playground, something that could easily be avoided by simply having an adult watch the kids.

Note that if you accept that really are that emotionally fragile, it follows from other observations that even when it comes to their own children, no one seems to know or care enough to act accordingly (except the IRB, apparently). I'm not really cynical enough to believe that one.

As an aside, I'd be wary about assuming that nobody was actually affected ...I certainly know I've said potentially hurtful things in contexts where I supposed nobody could possibly take them seriously.

Humorous statements often obliquely reference a truth of some sort. That's why they can be hurtful, even when they don't actually contain any truth.

I'm fairly confident, but since the experiment is costless I will ask them directly.

Comment author: Desrtopa 30 September 2013 05:25:37AM 2 points [-]

So, two possibilities here: 1) The experiment really was emotionally taxing and humans are really fragile 2) When it comes to certain narrow domains, the IRB standards are hyper-cautious, probably for the purpose of avoiding PR issues between scientists and the public.

I'd say it's some measure of both. According to my professor, the experiment was particularly emotionally taxing on the participants, but on the other hand, the IRB is somewhat notoriously hypervigilant when it comes to procedures which are physically or emotionally painful for test subjects.

Even secure, healthy people in industrialized countries are regularly exposed to experiences which would be too distressing to be permitted in an experiment by the IRB. But "too distressing to be permitted in an experiment by the IRB" is still a distinctly non-negligible level of distress, rather more than most people suspect would be associated with exclusion of one's virtual avatar in a computer game with no associated real-life judgment or implications.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit