= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Open Thread, October 13 - 19, 2013 - 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 (247)
Other people have expressed similar sentiments, and then played the AI Box experiment. Even of the ones who didn't lose, they still updated to "definitely could have lost in a similar scenario."
Unless you have reason to believe your skepticism comes from a different place than theirs, you should update towards gatekeeping being harder than you think.
The heuristic of ignoring secretive experiments that don't publish their details has served me well in the past.
I have played the game twice and updated in the opposite direction you claim.
In fact, my victories were rather trivial. This is despite the AIs trying really really hard.
Did you play against AI that do have won sometime in the past?
I do not honestly know. I will happily play a "hard" opponent like Eliezer or Tux. I have said this before, I estimate 99%+ chance of victory.
Unless I have already heard the information you have provided and updated on it, in which case updating again at your say so would be the wrong move. I don't tend update just because someone says more words at me to assert social influence. Which is kind of the point, isn't it? Yes, I do have reason to believe that I would not be persuaded to lose in that time.
Disagreement is of course welcome if it is expressed in the form of a wager where my winnings would be worth my time and the payoff from me to the gatekeeper is suitable to demonstrate flaws in probability estimates.