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.

Tuxedage 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.

Comments (123)

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

Comment author: Tuxedage 02 October 2013 08:14:10AM 1 point [-]

I should add that both my gatekeepers from this writeup, but particularly the last gatekeeper went in with the full intention of being as ruthless as possible and win. I did lose, so your point might be valid, but I don't think wanting to win matters as much as you think it does.

Comment author: V_V 06 October 2013 12:24:25AM *  -2 points [-]

You wanna play with me?

No monetary stakes, but If I win we publish the log. This way I have very little real-life incentive to win, while you still have an incentive to win (defending your status). And anyway, if you lose there would be no point in keeping the log secrets, since your arguments would be clearly not persuasive enough to persuade me.

Do you think you could win at these conditions?

Comment author: Tuxedage 06 October 2013 05:25:02AM *  2 points [-]

Do you think you could win at these conditions?

It's not a binary. There's a non-zero chance of me winning, and a non-zero chance of me losing. You assume that if there's a winning strategy, it should win 100% of the time, and if it doesn't, it should not win at all. I've tried very hard to impress upon people that this is not the case at all -- there's no "easy" winning method that I could take and guarantee a victory. I just have to do it the hard way, and luck is usually a huge factor in these games.

As it stands, there are people willing to pay up to $300-$750 for me to play them without the condition of giving up logs, and I have still chosen not to play. Your offer to play without monetary reward and needing to give up logs if I lose is not very tempting in comparison, so I'll pass.

Comment author: gwern 06 October 2013 02:12:24AM 1 point [-]

And anyway, if you lose there would be no point in keeping the log secrets, since your arguments would be clearly not persuasive enough to persuade me.

Bit of a false dichotomy there, no?

Comment author: V_V 06 October 2013 10:50:52AM 0 points [-]

Why?

Comment author: gwern 06 October 2013 02:47:40PM 4 points [-]

Either his tactics work perfectly and are guaranteed to win against you, or they are so worthless he shouldn't mind opening the kimono and revealing everything to the world? A rather extreme premise under which to offer a game.

Comment author: V_V 07 October 2013 01:57:35PM 0 points [-]

So what's the point of keeping the logs secret if the GK wins?

Comment author: gwern 07 October 2013 02:38:55PM 1 point [-]

That doesn't seem like a reply to my observation about your dichotomy. Please justify your offer first: why should the value of Tuxedage's tactics be either extremely high or zero based on a single game, and not any intermediate value?

Comment author: V_V 07 October 2013 04:04:06PM -2 points [-]

I never claimed that.

Comment author: gwern 07 October 2013 09:17:15PM 1 point [-]

That seems like the clearest interpretation of your proposal, nor did you explain what you actually meant when I summarized it and called it a false dichotomy, nor have you explained what you actually meant in this comment either.