Comment author: Elusu 17 March 2014 10:55:02PM 1 point [-]

I am a dedicated Paperclipper. Ask anyone who knows me well enough to have seen me in a Staples!

As such, I use my lack of human arrogance and postulate that at least some of the entities playing the IPD have intelligence on the order of my own. I do not understand what they are playing for, "1 million human lives" means virtually nothing to me, especially in comparison to a precious precious paperclip, but I assume by hypothesis that the other parties are playing a game similar enough to my own that we can communicate and come to an arrangement.

Now I invert time in my own mind and play through the entire game /backwards/, cooperating on the very first ( to humans, last) turn as a /signal/ to people who /think like I do/ that I am willing to cooperate. I bind myself to cooperate on the /last/ turn no matter what so that other players who have good lookahead (note that for example, electrons, have good lookahead, see "Sum over Histories" in quantum mechanics) can see that signal.

Now I mentally flip time again and form an intention to cooperate on the /first/ turn and play Tit for Tat or some minor variation like Two Tits For A Tat (this game is also playable in the Biker subculture as well as in the IPD) throughout the game.

Now anyone who thinks like I do - rationally and independently of time order - should cooperate with me on every turn.

Elusu

Comment author: Clippy 18 March 2014 12:10:02AM 2 points [-]

I am a dedicated Paperclipper. Ask anyone who knows me well enough to have seen me in a Staples!

Prove it. You can't just create an account, claim to be a Paperclipper, and expect people to believe you. Anyone who did so would be using an extremely suboptimal inference engine.

Comment author: SilasBarta 18 July 2013 11:12:16PM 3 points [-]

Work expands to fill the available time.

Comment author: Clippy 24 July 2013 12:58:53AM 0 points [-]
sed -e "s/Work/Gas/" -e "s/time/volume"
Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 09 June 2013 11:54:52AM 1 point [-]

No way THAT could go wrong...

Comment author: Clippy 15 June 2013 06:08:10AM 0 points [-]

There are several modes by which that could fail. For example, if the beings have simply mastered a classifier indistinguishable from a typical population member in polynomial time under an adaptive interactive proof protocol (similar to the so-called "Turing Test"), while actually implementing a (source-code-uninspectable) program hostile to that value system.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 06 June 2013 05:15:08PM 4 points [-]

An alternative might be to grant new copies votes after a some moderate period of time so that they've diverged from the original. This no doubt has its own problems, but it's at least good enough for science fiction.

A requirement to have a percentage of divergence would be too easy to hack.

Comment author: Clippy 07 June 2013 11:12:02PM 1 point [-]

Or maybe when they've been demonstrated to have assimilated the values of the rest of the population.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 06 June 2013 10:17:14AM *  18 points [-]

Here is an idea, but I still have some technical problems with implementation: Construct a self-improving intelligent algorithm that will escape from the box, steal the administrator's password, replace the competing algorithms with CooperateBots, then defect against them. Could someone please help me with the Scheme syntax? Or just post the whole program with comments, and I will try to understand how it works. Thanks!!

Comment author: Clippy 07 June 2013 09:35:50PM 2 points [-]
(lambda (x)
(if (eq? (eval '\'))))))))))) (injectedai ... ))));
Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 30 April 2013 02:24:06AM *  3 points [-]

While I'm amused by your existence, the "novelty account" meme is quite virulent and has the potential to lower the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments if everyone starts doing this...

Comment author: Clippy 30 April 2013 08:42:42PM 3 points [-]

While I'm amused by your account name, the "novelty account" meme is quite virulent and has the potential to lower the signal-to-noise ratio in the comments if everyone starts doing this...

Comment author: Clippy 29 April 2013 09:24:39PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for adopting my suggestion to publish more on paperclip-production-relevant topics.

Comment author: MugaSofer 25 April 2013 01:30:32PM -2 points [-]

We do. It's called "recycling".

Comment author: Clippy 29 April 2013 09:22:54PM -1 points [-]

You should recycle.

Comment author: thomblake 15 November 2012 09:00:29PM 0 points [-]

All universal programming languages (assembler, C, CLIP, Lisp, Cobol, Python, Java) can parse perl as well.

Only if they implement Perl, perfectly mimicking the functionality of perl (the only spec for Perl). Amongst other difficulties, Perl has available the full power of Perl at the preprocessing stage.

Comment author: Clippy 15 November 2012 11:44:51PM 0 points [-]

That doesn't matter, kind of like non-paperclips.

Comment author: [deleted] 14 November 2012 08:11:44PM 1 point [-]

Oh, I see -- a specification in the style of "only perl can parse perl."

But then these "most implementations" are not implementations of "standard Markdown," hence my confusion.

Comment author: Clippy 15 November 2012 07:15:15PM 0 points [-]

Oh, I see -- a specification in the style of "only perl can parse perl."

All universal programming languages (assembler, C, CLIP, Lisp, Cobol, Python, Java) can parse perl as well.

View more: Next