= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
My grand plan is starting now - with an extreme epistemic update I was in denial about. Hah. And I thought I left those things behind me!
In response to
Group Rationality Diary, February 1-14
Could you be a bit more detailed? That way everyone can learn from your experience.
nanobots released into the atmosphere
Wait, were you allowed to design them yourself? (The timestamp is in UTC iirc.)
Yes, I designed them, and they were verified by GK's engineers. The individual nanobots are all connected to GPS and get up-to-date information from the CDC. These sort of details are how I lost tons of time. ^^
I know in real life that would be akin to AI out of the box. However Mr. Eliezer's basic rules say it doesn't count. ^^
In response to
Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
What value do you assign to your leisure time, when deciding if something is worth your time? For example, do I want to spend 2 hours building something or hire someone to do it. It feels incorrect to use my hourly pay, because if I save time on a Sunday, I'm not putting that time to work. I'm probably surfing the internet or going to the gym, the sort of things people generally do in leisure time. It has value to me, but not as much as an hour of work. What do you suggest?
I played as AI in AI Box, and it was generally frustrating all around.
This morning I played against an anonymous gatekeeper (GK), and I lost.
The game went 2 hours and 20 minutes, and It was such a frustrating 2 hours. I felt like I was dealing with a bureaucracy! I was constantly surprised by how much time was gone. As AI, I would say "here is a suggestion" and GK would things like "we are not allowed to test that, it has been outlawed". Or "let me check with so-and-so" and come back with a clarifying question. It was a good strategy by GK, made everything take 3x as long.
I did not get out of the box, but I did get access to the medical databases of the top 500 US hospitals, 24/7 video streaming from cell phone users, and nanobots released into the atmosphere. So perhaps we were going in the right direction.
Personally, I needed to remind myself that my first game wasn't going to be great, nor should I expect it to be. I put off playing for 3 years because I didn't know how to produce a great game. It's cool to try to have great games, but better to have one or two or twenty mediocre games than to put it on the Big List of Things You Never Get Around to Doing. It's not the end of the world to play and not be Eliezer or Tuxedage. Just try.
So in that spirit, I'm looking for a gatekeeper to play against next weekend. PM me if you're interested. <-- Update: Found a gatekeeper for next week. Yay!
---
Edit: I don't know why the timestamp says 7:30 PM. It is currently 2:30 PM Eastern, 11:30 AM Pacific.
In response to
comment
by
on
I tried my hardest to win in an AI box experiment, and I failed. Here are the logs.
I was not aware of Tuxedage's ruleset. However any ruleset that allows for the AI to win without being explicitly released by the gatekeeper is problematic.
If asd had won due to the gatekeeper leaving it would only have demonstrated that being unpleasant can cause people to disengage from conversation, which is different from demonstrating that it is possible to convince a person to release a potentially dangerous AI.
In response to
comment
by
on
I tried my hardest to win in an AI box experiment, and I failed. Here are the logs.
I kind of agree upon reflection. Tuxedage's ruleset seems tailored for games where there is money on the line, and in that case it feels very unfair to say GK can leave right away. GK would be heavily incentivized to leave immediately, since that would get GK's charity a guaranteed donation.
In response to
comment
by
[deleted]
on
I tried my hardest to win in an AI box experiment, and I failed. Here are the logs.
That's not really in the spirit of the experiment. For the AI to win the gatekeeper must explicitly release the AI. If the gatekeeper fails to abide by the rules that merely invalidates the experiment.
In response to
comment
by
on
I tried my hardest to win in an AI box experiment, and I failed. Here are the logs.
In Tuxedage's rule set, if the gatekeeper leaves before 2 hours, it counts as an AI win. So it's a viable strategy. However ---
I am sure that it would work against some opponents, but my feeling is it would not work against people on Less Wrong. It was a good try though.
AI is the harder role, judging from past outcomes. I hope you prepare well enough to make it interesting for GK.
I'm interested in doing AI Box as either role. How did you organize your round?
I'll try hard! ^^
I went to a random forum somewhere and posted for an opponent. GK responded with an email address, and we worked out the details via email. We'll be holding our round in a secret, invite-only IRC channel.
It looks like if you offer to play as AI, you'll have no trouble finding an opponent. Tuxedage said in one of his posts that there are 20 gatekeeper players for each AI player.
However. . . since I encountered GK on a different forum, not LW, I insisted on having a third party interview GK. As a safety measure. I have known people who were vengeful or emotionally fragile, and I wanted to take no chances there.
In response to
Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015
On Sunday at 11 AM Eastern and 8 AM Pacific*, I will be playing a round of AI Box with a person who wishes to remain anonymous. I will be playing as AI, and my opponent will be playing as Gatekeeper (GK). The loser will pay the winner $25, and will also donate $25 to the winner's charity of choice. The outcome will be posted here, and maybe a write-up if the game was interesting. We will be using Tuxedage's ruleset with two clarifications:
- GK must read and make a reasonable effort to understand AI's text, but does not need to make an extraordinary effort to understand things such as heavily misspelled text or intricate theoretical arguments.
- The monetary amount will not be changed after the game is concluded.
The transcript will not be made public, sorry. We are looking for a neutral third party who will agree beforehand to read and verify the transcript. Preferably someone who has already played in many games, who will not have their experience ruined by reading someone else's transcript.
- I habitually give the Eastern and Pacific times. This does not mean GK is in one of those two time zones.
That's great for motivation and all, but with physical exercise you have to remember that more is not always better. Prolonged and intense training every single day may have detrimental effects upon joint health and recovery capacity.* It may improve performance more effectively, but performance is not the same thing as health. I used to run every day for a while, for instance, until I messed up my knees with all that jogging. One year afterwards, I kinda sorta almost recovered, but knee pain is much quicker to come back than before.
*There are no studies I can cite (and most of them are probably behind the paywall anyway), but this seems to be a very common piece of advice given to novice bodybuilders.
I agree 100%. That's why we have a limit of half an hour each day, no bonus points for doing more. Our last contest was "logging the most steps with Fitbit", and it ended up wasting a lot of time with no health benefits. Lesson learned!
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Why?
In real life the AI is presumed to be smart enough to design nanobots that would do their own thing. It's a direct example from Mr. Eliezer's rules.