= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I was already aware of those public statements. I remain rather less than perfectly confident that Yudkowsky actually won.
In response to
comment
by
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
In response to
comment
by
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to be implying that, on two separate occasions, two different people were (induced to?) lie about the outcome of an experiment.
So you're implying that either Eliezer is dishonest, or both of his opponents were dishonest on his behalf. And you find this more likely than an actual AI win in the game?
In response to
comment
by
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
Never still seems extraordinary. I find myself entertaining hypotheses like "maybe the AI has never actually won".
In response to
comment
by
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
Eliezer Yudkowsky has been let out as the AI at least twice[1][2] but both tests were precommitted to secrecy.
I'd be surprised if he's the only one who has ever won as the AI, I think it more likely that this is a visibility issue (e.g. despite him being a very-high profile person in the AI safety memetic culture, you weren't aware that Eliezer had won as the AI when you made your comment) and while I'm not aware of others who have won as the AI, I would place my bet on that being merely a lack of knowledge on my part, and not because no one else actually has.
this is further compounded by the fact that some (many?) games are conducted under a pre-commitment to secrecy, and the results that get the most discussion (and therefore, most visibility) are the ones with full transcripts for third-parties to pick through.
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
I still don't recall any where the gatekeeper lost.
In response to
comment
by
on
I played as a Gatekeeper and came pretty close to losing in a couple of occasions. Logs and a brief recap inside.
In general it seems that gatekeepers who win are more willing to release the transcripts.
It's also possible that the 'best' AI players are the ones most willing to pre-commit to not releasing transcripts, as not having your decisions (or the discussions that led to them) go public helps eliminate that particular disincentive to releasing the AI from the box.
In response to
Quotes Repository
The noble lord in this case, as in so many others, first destroys his opponent, and then destroys his own position afterwards. The noble lord is the Prince Rupert of parliamentary discussion: his charge is resistless, but when he returns from the pursuit he always finds his camp in the possession of the enemy.
Benjamin Disraeli, source, on the speeches of Lord Stanley. I often think of this quote regarding the effectiveness (or otherwise) of different kinds of rhetoric.
For context, Prince Rupert was a cavalry commander whose charges were extremely effective at shattering the opposing cavalry, but who was often unable to restrain his troops from going too far, and consequently lost a number of important battles in the English Civil War.
This is of course, the same Prince Rupert for whom the Prince Rupert's Drop is named. Although this is ostensibly because he was the man who demonstrated it to the Crown, I always found some amount of schadenfreude in the fact that the man was known for cavalry charges that went too far and shattered his line as well as the enemy's.
The correct answer is Tetris. The question should have been what is the best selling personal computer game of all time? Mobile phones are technically computers too. I'm not sure how much difference that would have made.
I interpreted the question to include mobile devices and answered Tetris with high confidence.
It would be interesting to see the results of the question if we accepted either Tetris or Minecraft as the correct answer, since both are correct depending on whether or not "computer" was meant to mean "IBM PC Compatible" or "video game playing platform"
Not sure I understand your question, but:
- I assume that each civilization only cares about itself. So one civilization succeeding does not "lead to large positive utilities for all future civilisations", only for itself. If civilization A assigns positive or negative value to civilization B succeeding, the expected utility calculations become more complicated.
- You cannot "let the game end". The fact that the game ends when one player receives R only represents the fact that each player knows that no previous player has received R (i.e., we arguably know that no civilization so far has successfully colonized space in our neighborhood).
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that R represents an enduring multi-system technological civilization and not mere colonial presence?
I don't think we can arguably claim that space in our stellar neighborhood has never been colonized, just that it does not appear to be currently
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
It appears that you are tacitly presuming that life typically co-evolves with a stellar system and that implicitly, life of earth complexity took a maximum of ~4.5b years to evolve(?). If this is case I'm curious what your thoughts on the recent paper by Sharov and Gordon might be. The paper applies statistical arguments to genomic complexity of earth organisms and argues that life as we know it on earth may in fact have taken as much as 9+/-2.5bn years to evolve (predating earth and the local star, potentially up to approximately the entire history of our galaxy and a significant percentage of the history of the stellar epoch)?
If life of complexity similar to that currently on Earth does take as much as 11.5 billion years to evolve, that does not leave a very large window for forerunner biologies and would tend to increase the probability that Earth life is in fact some of the most complex life to ever even have the opportunity to arise in our current light cone.
Is the position of their paper (basically: that life takes longer to evolve than we think) something you are already planning to address further in your article series? I'd be interested to hear what your interpretation might be.