More difficult version of AI-Box Experiment: Instead of having up to 2 hours, you can lose at any time if the other player types AI DESTROYED. The Gatekeeper player has told their friends that they will type this as soon as the Experiment starts. You can type up to one sentence in your IRC queue and hit return immediately, the other player cannot type anything before the game starts (so you can show at least one sentence up to IRC character limits before they can type AI DESTROYED). Do you think you can win?

(I haven't played this one but would give myself a decent chance of winning, against a Gatekeeper who thinks they could keep a superhuman AI inside a box, if anyone offered me sufficiently huge stakes to make me play the game ever again.)

Psychological torture.

Adult readers never seriously maintain that fictitious characters exist

A) "Never" is a strong word. I imagine there are all kinds of mental disorders that can lead certain adults to confuse fiction with reality

B) "Existence" here is a cached term used for simplifying a concept to the point of being inaccurate. When a person says that, for instance, Frodo Baggins doesn't exist, he or she would be entirely incorrect to say that there is nothing in existence that matches the concept of Frodo Baggins. What the person is actually saying, is that a description of the character of Frodo calls to mind an image of something resembling an organism and that this image fits into a mental category that no actual organism can fit into. Whether or not Frodo "exists" is a pretty poor question unless fleshed out.

Open logs is a pretty strong constraint on the AI. You'd have to restrict yourself to strategies that wouldn't make everyone you know hate you, prevent you from getting hired in the future, etc.

Have there been any interesting AI box experiments with open logs? Everyone seems to insist on secrecy, which only serves to make me more curious. I get the feeling that, sooner or later, everyone on this site will be forced to try the experiment just to see what really happens.

Only read "External" so far, but I propose god(s) be divided into "trusted and idealized authority figures", "internalized sense of commitment to integrity of respected and admirable reputation (honor)", and "external personification of inner conscience".

If people cite God as the source of spiritual value, it's because he represents a combination of these things and the belief that their values are ingrained in reality. God isn't the root cause, and taking Him out of the equation still leaves the relevant feelings and commitment.

Also, "other humans" isn't relevantly different from "other agents".

Also, also, I'm not entirely clear on the point of this post (probably should've brought that up before correcting you, really). Are you citing actual sources of value, or the things people sometimes believe are the sources of value, whether or not they're correct? Value is necessarily formed from concepts in the mind, so the brain can be assumed to be the thing most usefully termed the origin.

Also, also, also, when you say "value" do you just mean moral value, or things people care about on the whole?

The cached copy is no longer available. And the WayBackMachine cannot display the site due to robots.txt, unfortunately.

Care to record that on predictionbook?

This seems interesting. Are you just doing the whole thing through email? Also, voluntary response isn't a great way to get accurate results, but I guess it's all you have to work with.

I squeed when I saw this post and you should have shown the .mov series, everyone finds those funny.

Also, I don't think I can say that the root cause of climate change denial and cartoon hatedom is the exact same bias. With cartoons, people mostly reject them for fear of falling out of line with a vague but undeniably present cultural standard that could cause them grief in the future. With climate change, the issue has become so muddled in politics that clear lines have been drawn and to cross them would be labeled betrayal. Also, there are various non-scientific authorities that support either side and sometimes have personal agendas, so anyone who doesn't have a particularly strong trust in scientists, enough to take shortened summaries at face value without suspicion, has to either put time into actual research, or default to one side based on political affiliation. And I might have breached the no-politics rule there, I'm not sure.

There are so many biases behind fundamental creationism that I'm not even going to touch them.