Hey everyone,
@Zane is organising an AI debate around a chess, to test how easy it is for an entity with better understanding to fool one with a lesser understanding.
Check out these two threads:
Lying to chess players for alignment
Deception Chess: Game #1
I thought I would open this up to the masses, so I have two challenges for you. I estimate that this is suitable for chess players rated <1900 lichess, <1700 chess.com or <1500 FIDE.
Pretend that you are playing a serious game of chess, so no computer analysis, and try not to move the pieces (though you can if you find this too complex and are completely lost).
I have created a study that... (read 970 more words →)
This is my belief, and why I do not think AI debate is a good safety technique. Once the ability difference is too great, the 'human' can only follow general principles, which is insufficient for a real-life complicated situation. Both sides can easily make appeals to general rules, but it is the nuances of the position that determine the correct path, which the human cannot distinguish.