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.
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.
How is it that the Democrats get to choose what gets shut down?
The president has a great deal of leeway on exactly how to implement the shutdown.
Is the statement "The Democrat strategy is to do random bad things to the American public" even remotely true?
Yes. (I can provide more examples if you're interested.)
That article is a big list of talking points with no sources and an obvious political agenda. Seriously?
That post was pretty atrocious.
Some glaring problems:
How is it that the Democrats get to choose what gets shut down? Is the statement "The Democrat strategy is to do random bad things to the American public" even remotely true?
"Stuff like this is the main damage – the government continues as usual, illegally, in the sense that government employees continue to receive pay and exercise power"
Only "non-essential" parts of the government are closing. There is a legal framework determining who gets pay.
"But, if government activities, including Obamacare, continue as usual, despite not being legally funded"
Except that Obamacare is self-funded and was always known to not be affected by this political theater.
"When the Republicans fold, rendering their election victory irrelevant, that makes those irritating white voters irrelevant."
What Republican election victory? How would the Republicans folding on their self-induced shutdown disregard the voters who overwhelmingly don't want a government shutdown?
This is true; however keeping a website running is still very, very cheap compared to almost anything else the government does, including functions that are continuing as usual during the shutdown.
If web apps are too high maintenance, that does not explain the shutdown of government Twitters (example: https://twitter.com/NOAA, which went to the extra effort of posting that "we won't be tweeting 'cause shutdown.") I note with amusement however that the Health and Human Services Twitter is alive and well and tweeting about the ACA.
"This is true; however keeping a website running is still very, very cheap compared to almost anything else the government does, including functions that are continuing as usual during the shutdown."
This is literally irrelevant when the non-essential services have to be shut down. If your techs get furloughed, shutting down the site is appropriate.
The twitter accounts are "shut down" in the sense that the employee who would have done the tweeting is now furloughed and can't. Putting out a tweet explaining the upcoming lapse makes a whole lot of sense to me.
Interesting statements I ran into with regards to kabuki theater aspects of the so called United States federal government shutdown of 2013. This resulted in among other things closing down websites.
A website shouldn't just go down when the people managing it stop working, it's not like they're pedaling away inside the servers. Block the federal highways with army tanks, sorry the government is closed.
There is a nontrivial set of the voting public who legitimately believe money equals tech working via magical alchemy.
I was interested to know this kind of thing has a name: Washington Monument Syndrome.
The name derives from the National Park Service's alleged habit of saying that any cuts would lead to an immediate closure of the wildly popular Washington Monument.
This is actually a terrible example of Washington Monument Syndrome.
" Hi, Server admin here... We cost money as does our infrastructure, I imagine a site that large costs a very good deal, we aren't talking five bucks on bluehost here.
I am private sector, but if I were to be furloughed for an indeterminate amount of time you really have two options. Leave things on autopilot until the servers inevitably break or the site crashes at which point parts or all of it will be left broken without notice or explanation. Or put up a splash page and spin down 99% of my infrastructure (That splash page can run on a five dollar bluehost account) and then leave. I won't be able to come in while furloughed to put it up after it crashes.
If you really think web apps keep themselves running 24/7 without intervention we really have been doing a great job with that illusion and I guess the sleepless nights have been worth it to be successfully taken for-granted."
Possibly, but what about the descriptions of emotional turmoil? I'm assuming the report of the game isn't all part of the role-play.
I know that I personally go into competitive games with a different mindset than the mindset I have when roleplaying.
If they went into it trying to roleplay emotions should be expected. Reporting that turmoil in the report is just accurate reporting.
Yeah, winning is trivial - you just don't open the damn box. It can't get more trivial than that. (Although, you didn't say whether or not your opponent had proved themselves by winning as AI against others a few times?)
It's still worth thinking about though, because something about my model of humans is off.
I didn't expect so many people to lose. I just don't know how to update my model of people to one where there are so many people who could lose the AI box game. The only other major thing I can think of that persists to challenge my model in this way (and continues to invite my skepticism despite seemingly trustworthy sources) is hypnosis.
It's possible the two have common root and I can explain two observations with one update.
I think a lot of gatekeepers go into it not actually wanting to win. If you go in just trying to have fun and trying to roleplay, that is different than trying to win a game.
Assuming none of this is fabricated or exaggerated, every time I read these I feel like something is really wrong with my imagination. I can sort of imagine someone agreeing to let the AI out of the box, but I fully admit that I can't really imagine anything that would elicit these sorts of emotions between two mentally healthy parties communicating by text-only terminals, especially with the prohibition on real-world consequences. I also can't imagine what sort of unethical actions could be committed within these bounds, given the explicitly worded consent form. Even if you knew a lot of things about me personally, as long as you weren't allowed to actually, real-world, blackmail me...I just can't see these intense emotional exchanges happening.
Am I the only one here? Am I just not imagining hard enough? I'm actually at the point where I'm leaning towards the whole thing being fabricated - fiction is more confusing than truth, etc. If it isn't fabricated, I hope that statement is taken not as an accusation, but as an expression of how strange this whole thing seems to me, that my incredulity is straining through despite the incredible extent to which the people making claims seem trustworthy.
You are correct here. The only keepers losing are people who do not actually know how to win.
I have played twice, and victory was trivial.
Ben Goertzel will take your money and try put an AGI inside a robot.
Trigger warning: Those creepy semi-human robots that will make anyone who hasn't spent months and months locked in a workshop making them do those human-imitating jerky facial gestures recoil in horror.
That was hideous. Poor production values and a sloppy video that oozes incompetence.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
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.