LESSWRONG
is fundraising!
LW
$

by KvmanThinking
1 min read
A
12

2

I believe that even through a text-only terminal, a superintelligence could do anything to a human. Persuade the human to let it out, inflict extreme pleasure or suffering with a word. However, can't you just... limit the output of the superintelligence? Just make it so that the human can say anything, but the AI can only respond from a short list of responses, like "Yes," "No," "Maybe," "IDK," "The first option," "The second option," or a similar system. I... don't see how that can still present a risk. What about you?

AI Boxing (Containment)Conversations with AIsAI
Frontpage

2

AI box question
New Answer
New Comment

1 Answers sorted by
top scoring

TsviBT

70

In theory, possibly, but it's not clear how to save the world given such restricted access. See e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NojipcrFFMzNx6Grc/sudo-s-shortform?commentId=onKfTrunn2Q2Gc4Pw

In practice no, because you can't deal with a superintelligence safely. E.g.

  • You can't build a computer system that's robust to auto-exfiltration. I mean, maybe you can, but you're taking on a whole bunch more cost, and also hoping you didn't screw up.
  • You can't develop this tech without other people stealing it and running it unsafely.
  • You can't develop this tech safely at all, because in order to develop it you have to do a lot more than just get a few outputs, you have to, like, debug your code and stuff.
  • And so forth. Mainly and so forth.
1 comment, sorted by
top scoring
Click to highlight new comments since:
[-]Dagon33

I'm not sure that AI boxing is a live debate anymore.  People are lining up to give full web access to current limited-but-unknown-capabilities implementations, and there's not much reason to believe there will be any attempt at constraining the use or reach of more advanced versions.

Reply
Moderation Log
A
11