3 ms·
This could be really cool, but the conversation was impossible to read. The links/website is designed badly. Howd he let the AI out both times?
by mkirklions 8y ago
This could be really cool, but the conversation was impossible to read. The links/website is designed badly.
Howd he let the AI out both times?
- nordsieck 8y ago> Howd he let the AI out both times? No one knows. That's the point. An AI will eventually be much smarter than a human, so it doesn't matter how the human succeeds - it's enough to know that a human has succeeded even once.
- mkirklions 8y agoHmm, would like a different human to try it. I read some of the dialog and the user being the gatekeeper talks openly about his inability to socialize that caused him to receive special social treatment until 10th grade. What if there were 2 gatekeepers, north korean style?
- rhaps0dy 8y agoThere have been other instances of the AI box experiment where the dialog is public. Like this one https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fbekxBfgvfc7pmnzB/how-to-win-the-ai-box-experiment-sometimes https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fbekxBfgvfc7pmnzB/how-to-win... . Yudkowsky's original intention to not release the dialog was to prevent people from saying "I wouldn't have been swayed by that, therefore AI escaping is impossible!". Even if we grant the first part of the sentence, that an AI escaping is impossible doesn't follow. It's very much possible, and strong evidence is that only human-level intelligences have escaped the same situation.
- DanBC 8y ago> and strong evidence is that only human-level intelligences have escaped the same situation. I don't know if this is the same situation, but laboratory beagles, farmed mink, etc show that non-humans can pursuade humans to release them from cages.