You wanna play with me?
No monetary stakes, but If I win we publish the log. This way I have very little real-life incentive to win, while you still have an incentive to win (defending your status). And anyway, if you lose there would be no point in keeping the log secrets, since your arguments would be clearly not persuasive enough to persuade me.
Do you think you could win at these conditions?
Do you think you could win at these conditions?
It's not a binary. There's a non-zero chance of me winning, and a non-zero chance of me losing. You assume that if there's a winning strategy, it should win 100% of the time, and if it doesn't, it should not win at all. I've tried very hard to impress upon people that this is not the case at all -- there's no "easy" winning method that I could take and guarantee a victory. I just have to do it the hard way, and luck is usually a huge factor in these games.
As it stands, there are people willing to pay up to $300-$750 for me to play them without the condition of giving up logs, and I have still chosen not to play. Your offer to play without monetary reward and needing to give up logs if I lose is not very tempting in comparison, so I'll pass.
What was the result?
Doesn't sound healthy. I was going to offer to be an AI but forget it.
I'm laughing so hard at this exchange right now (As a former AI who's played against MixedNuts)
Keep in mind that, IIUC, Yudkowsky got to choose his opponents. He also decided to stop playing after he lost twice in a row, as Tuxedage apparently did as well.
I don't think there is any way the AI party can win against a competitive GK party. The AI can only win against a GK party willing to role-play, and this should be fairly trivial, since according to the rules the AI party has pretty much complete control over his fictional backstory and fictional world states.
I should add that both my gatekeepers from this writeup, but particularly the last gatekeeper went in with the full intention of being as ruthless as possible and win. I did lose, so your point might be valid, but I don't think wanting to win matters as much as you think it does.
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.
Both my gatekeepers from this game went in with the intent to win. Granted, I did lose these games, so you might have a point, but I'm not sure it makes as large a different as you think it does.
Would it be possible to create a product of this? There must be lots of curious people who are willing to pay for this sort of experience who wouldn't normally donate to MIRI. I don't mean Tuxedage should do it, but there must be some who are good at this who would. It would be possible to gather a lot of money. Though the vicious techniques that are probably used in these experiments wouldn't be very good press for MIRI.
I'm not sure if this is something that can earn money consistently for long periods of time. It takes just one person to leak logs for all others to lose curiosity and stop playing the game. Sooner or later, some scrupulous gatekeeper is going to release logs. That's also part of the reason why I have my hesitancy to play significant number of games.
I have a question: When people imagine (or play) this scenario, do they give any consideration to the AI player's portrayal, or do they just take "AI" as blanket permission to say anything they want, no matter how unlikely?
[The anonymous player believes] that the mental skills necessary to beat him are orthogonal to most forms of intelligence. Most people willing to play the experiment tend to do it to prove their own intellectual fortitude, that they can't be easily outsmarted by fiction. I now believe they're thinking in entirely the wrong terms necessary to succeed.
I can easily believe that Tuxedage's strategies are strongly tied to a creative imagination and being able to think like a human does, more so than any empirical argument. (I also imagine his scripted list of strategies are strongly designed for the typical LWer and would not work on an "average" person.) Programmed AIs, as opposed to EMs, are likely to have thought processes once again orthogonal to any or all human-like thought processes, including but not limited to human-metric intelligence, intuition, or social understanding (to the depth shown in player testimonies.)
I have a question: When people imagine (or play) this scenario, do they give any consideration to the AI player's portrayal, or do they just take "AI" as blanket permission to say anything they want, no matter how unlikely?
I interpret the rules as allowing for the later, although I do act AI-like.
(I also imagine his scripted list of strategies are strongly designed for the typical LWer and would not work on an "average" person.)
Although I have never played against an average person, I would suspect my winrate against average people would actually be higher. I do have arguments which are LW specific, but I also have many that aren't.
Now what I really want to see is an AI-box experiment where the Gatekeeper wins early by convincing the AI to become Friendly.
That's hard to check. However, there was a game where the gatekeeper convinced the AI to remain in the box.
However, there was a game where the gatekeeper convinced the AI to remain in the box.
I did that! I mentioned that in this post:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk
Yet those who are complacent about it are the most susceptible.
That sounds similar to hypnosis, to which a lot of people are susceptible but few think they are. So if you want a practical example of AI escaping the box just imagine an operator staring at a screen for hours with an AI that is very adept at judging and influencing the state of human hypnosis. And that's only a fairly narrow approach to success for the AI, and one that has been publicly demonstrated for centuries to work on a lot of people.
Personally, I think I could win the game against a human but only by keeping in mind the fact that it was a game at all times. If that thought ever lapsed, I would be just as susceptible as anyone else. Presumably that is one aspect of Tuxedage's focus on surprise. The requirement to actively respond to the AI is probably the biggest challenge because it requires focusing attention on whatever the AI says. In a real AI-box situation I would probably lose fairly quickly.
Now what I really want to see is an AI-box experiment where the Gatekeeper wins early by convincing the AI to become Friendly.
Now what I really want to see is an AI-box experiment where the Gatekeeper wins early by convincing the AI to become Friendly.
I did that! I mentioned that in this post:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
My probability estimate for losing the AI-box experiment as a gatekeeper against a very competent AI (a human, not AGI) remains very low. PM me if you want to play against me, I will do my best efforts to help the AI (give information about my personality, actively participate in the conversation, etc).
Updates: I played against DEA7TH. I won as AI. This experiment was conducted over Skype.