= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ah, sorry to get your hopes up, it's a degenerate approach: http://pastebin.com/Jee2P6BD
Thanks for the link! I had a chuckle - that's an interesting brand of cruelty, even if it only potentially works out of character. I think it highlights that it might potentially be easier to win the AI box experiment on a technicality, the proverbial letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.
In response to
How To Win The AI Box Experiment (Sometimes)
Thank you for publishing. Before this I think the best public argument from the AI side was Khoth's, which was... not very convincing, although it apparently won once.
I still don't believe the result. But I'll accept (unlike with nonpublic iterations) that it seems to be a real one, and that I am confused.
Do you have a link to Khoth's argument? I hadn't found any publicised winning scenarios back when I looked, so I'd be really interested in reading about it!
In response to
How To Win The AI Box Experiment (Sometimes)
Great. I appreciate the effort you put into writing your experiences up in this high level of detail :)
Whoops, judging by the timestamp of your comment, the post went up a bit sooner than I thought it would! Today I learnt "Save And Continue" actually means "Submit, but bring up the edit screen again"? The more you know... (It's done now. I was fiddling some more with formatting and with the preamble.)
Thanks for making me fix my misconception about Eliezer's stance - and for your support in general! I really appreciate it.
In response to
Meetup : LessWrong Hamburg
Gunnar has posted a summary of the event here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mhv/lesswong_hamburg_meetup_july_2015_summary/
In response to
LessWrong Hamburg Meetup July 2015 Summary
I've created a contact sheet so people who would like to stay in touch have that opportunity (since not everyone is on meetup.com or on LessWrong). I won't link to it here in the comment section since it will end up containing e-mail addresses that spambots might harvest, but I hope Gunnar will share the link with all of the attendants. :)
You don't have to enter your details, but you're very welcome to do so!
If you don't get the link within the next 24 hours, feel free to send me a message here on LessWrong, or contact me via my gmail address, which has the same username I have here, and ask for the link. :)
In response to
Meetup : LessWrong Hamburg
I fully intend to be there. :) Thanks for organising this!
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
It also hasn't won. (Unless someone more secretive than me had had the same idea)
It's a neat way to poke holes into the setup!
I've got to admit I'm actually even quite impressed you managed to pull that off, because while the effort of the Gatekeeper's obvious, I can't imagine that was something that you felt was fun, and I think it takes some courage to be willing to cheat the spirit of the setup, annoy your scenario partner almost without a shadow of a doubt, and resist the urge to check up on the person. I think in your situation that would've driven me about as nuts as the Gatekeeper. You did mention feeling "kind of bad about it" in the log itself and I find myself wondering (a little bit) if that was an understatement.
Thanks to both of you two for sharing that; I'm glad you both evidently survived the ordeal without hard feelings.
Here's a link to some discussion that I found in case someone else wants to poke their nose into this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kfb/open_thread_30_june_2014_6_july_2014/b1ts