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.

Kawoomba comments on I tried my hardest to win in an AI box experiment, and I failed. Here are the logs. - Less Wrong Discussion

6 [deleted] 27 January 2015 10:06PM

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

Comments (28)

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

Comment author: Kawoomba 28 January 2015 08:10:34AM 3 points [-]

The whole AI box experiment is a fun pastime, and educational in so far as learning to take artificial intellects seriously, but as real-world long-term "solutions" go, it is utterly useless. Like trying to contain nuclear weapons indefinitely, except you can build one just by having the blueprints and a couple leased hours on a supercomputer, no limited natural elements necessary, and having one means you win at whatever you desire (or that's what you'd think). All the while under the increasing pressure of improving technology, ever lowering the threshold to catastrophe. When have humans abstained from playing with the biggest fire they can find?

The best case scenario for AI boxing would be that people aware of the risks (unlikely because of motivated cognition) are the first to create an AGI (not just stumbling upon one, either) and use their first-mover advantage to box the AI just long enough (just having a few months would be lucky) to poke and prod it until they're satisfied it's mostly safe ("mostly" because whatever predicates the code fulfills, there remains the fundamental epsilon of insecurity of whether the map actually reflects the territory).

There are so many state actors, so many irresponsible parties involved in our sociological ecosystem, with so many chances of taking a wrong step, so many biological imperatives counter to success*, that (coming full circle to my very first comment on LW years ago) the whole endeavor seems like a fool's hope, and that only works out in Lord of the Rings.

But, as the sentient goo transforms us into beautiful paperclips, it's nice to know that at least you tried. And just maybe we get lucky enough that the whole take-off is just slow enough, or wonky enough, for the safe design insights to matter in some meaningful sense, after all.

* E.g. one AGI researcher defecting with the design to another group (which is also claiming to have a secure AI box / some other solution) would be a billionaire for the rest of his life, that being measured in weeks most likely. Such an easy lie to make to yourself. And that isn't if a relevant government agency doesn't even have to ask to get your designs, if anyone of reputation tipped them off, or they followed the relevant conferences (nooo, would they do that?).

Comment author: passive_fist 28 January 2015 10:49:52AM 0 points [-]

We all know that AI is a risk but personally I wouldn't worry too much. I doubt anything remotely similar to the AI box situation will ever happen. If AI happens via human enhancement many of the fears will be completely invalid.