But the median outcome is losing 5 utils?

Edit: Oh, wait! You mean the median total utility after some other stuff happens (with a variance of more than 5 utils)?

Suppose we have 200 agents, 100 of which start with 10 utils, the rest with 0. After taking this offer, we have 51 with -5, 51 with 5, 49 with 10000, and 49 with 10010. The median outcome would be a loss of -5 for half the agents, a gain of 5 for half, but only the half that would lose could actually get that outcome...

And what do you mean by "the possibility of getting tortured will manifest itself only very slightly at the 50th percentile"? I thought you were restricting yourself to median outcomes, not distributions? How do you determine the median distribution?

You are saying that a GAI being able to alter its own "code" on the actual code-level does not imply that it is able to alter in a deliberate and conscious fashion its "code" in the human sense you describe above?

I am saying pretty much exactly that. To clarify further, the words "deliberate", "conscious" and "wants" again belong to the level of emergent behavior: they can be used to describe the agent, not to explain it (what could not be explained by "the agent did X because it wanted to"?).

Sure, but we could imagine an AI deciding something like "I do not want to enjoy frozen yogurt", and then altering its code in such a way that it is no longer appropriate to describe it as enjoying frozen yogurt, yeah?

Let's instead make an attempt to explain. A complete control of an agent's own code, in the strict sense, is in contradiction of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Furthermore, information-theoretic considerations significantly limit the degree to which an agent can control its own code (I'm wondering if anyone has ever done the math. I expect not. I intend to look further into this). In information-theoretic terminology, the agent will be limited to typical manipulations of its own code, which will be a strict (and presumably very small) subset of all possible manipulations.

This seems trivially false - if an AI is instantiated as a bunch of zeros and ones in some substrate, how could Godel or similar concerns stop it from altering any subset of those bits?

Can an agent be made more effective than humans in manipulating its own code? I have very little doubt that it can. Can it lead to agents qualitatively more intelligent than humans? Again, I believe so. But I don't see a reason to believe that the code-rewriting ability itself can be qualitatively different than a human's, only quantitatively so (although of course the engineering details can be much different; I'm referring to the algorithmic level here).

You see reasons to believe that any artificial intelligence is limited to altering its motivations and desires in a way that is qualitatively similar to humans? This seems like a pretty extreme claim - what are the salient features of human self-rewriting that you think must be preserved?

Generally GAIs are ascribed extreme powers around here

As you've probably figured out, I'm new here. I encountered this post while reading the sequences. Although I'm somewhat learned on the subject, I haven't yet reached the part (which I trust exists) where GAI is discussed here.

On my path there, I'm actively trying to avoid a certain degree of group thinking which I detect in some of the comments here. Please take no offense, but it's phrases like the above quote which worry me: is there really a consensus around here about such profound questions? Hopefully it's only the terminology which is agreed upon, in which case I will learn it in time. But please, let's make our terminology "pay rent".

I don't think it's a "consensus" so much as an assumed consensus for the sake of argument. Some do believe that any hypothetical AI's influence is practically unlimited, some agree to assume that because it's not ruled out and is a worst-case scenario or an interesting case (see wedrifid's comment on the grandparent (aside: not sure how unusual or nonobvious this is, but we often use familial relationships to describe the relative positions of comments, e.g. the comment I am responding to is the "parent" of this comment, the one you were responding to when you wrote it is the "grandparent". I think that's about as far as most users take the metaphor, though.)).

Unlike my (present) traits, my future decisions don't yet exist, and hence cannot leak anything or become entangled with anyone.

Your future decisions are entangled with your present traits, and thus can leak. If you picture a Bayesian network with the nodes "Current Brain", "Future Decision", and "Current Observation", with arrows from Current Brain to the two other nodes, then knowing the value of Current Observation gives you information about Future Decision.

Obviously the alien is better than a human at running this game (though, note that a human would only have to be right a little more than 50% of the time to make one-boxing have the higher expected value - in fact, that could be an interesting test to run!). Perhaps it can observe your neurochemistry in detail and in real time. Perhaps it simulates you in this precise situation, and just sees whether you pick one or both boxes. Perhaps land-ape psychology turns out to be really simple if you're an omnipotent thought-experiment enthusiast.

The reasoning wouldn't be "this person is a one-boxer" but rather "this person will pick one box in this particular situation". It's very difficult to be the sort of person who would pick one box in the situation you are in without actually picking one box in the situation you are in.

One use of the thought experiment, other than the "non-causal effects" thing, is getting at this notion that the "rational" thing to do (as you suggest two-boxing is) might not be the best thing. If it's worse, just do the other thing - isn't that more "rational"?

Having asserted that your claim is, in fact, new information

I wouldn't assert that. I thought I was stating the obvious.

Yes, I think I misspoke earlier, sorry. It was only "new information" in the sense that it wasn't in that particular sentence of Eliezer's - to anyone familiar with discussions of GAI, your assertion certainly should be obvious.

You are saying that a GAI being able to alter its own "code" on the actual code-level does not imply that it is able to alter in a deliberate and conscious fashion its "code" in the human sense you describe above?

Generally GAIs are ascribed extreme powers around here - if it has low-level access to its code, then it will be able to determine how its "desires" derive from this code, and will be able to produced whatever changes it wants. Similarly, it will be able to hack human brains with equal finesse.

An advanced AI could reasonably be expected to be able to explicitly edit any part of its code however it desires. Humans are unable to do this.

Not meant as an attack. I'm saying, "to be fair it didn't actually say that in the original text, so this is new information, and the response is thus a reasonable one". Your comment could easily be read as implying that this is not new information (and that the response is therefore mistaken), so I wanted to add a clarification.

To be fair, when structured as

Sadly, we humans can't rewrite our own code, the way a properly designed AI could.

then the claim is in fact "we humans can't rewrite our own code (but a properly designed AI could)". If you remove a comma:

Sadly, we humans can't rewrite our own code the way a properly designed AI could.

only then is the sentence interpreted as you describe.

Many find that sort of discounting to be contrary to intuition and desired results, e.g. the suffering of some particular person is more or less significant depending on how many other people are suffering in a similar enough way.

Well! I may have to take a more in-depth look at it sometime this summer.