I'm the author of a previous paper about the AI containment problem. This new paper, Alfonseca et al, is kind of crap. This paper defines the term "containment

I'm the author of a previous paper about the AI containment problem. This new paper, Alfonseca et al, is kind of crap. This paper defines the term "containment problem" in a nonstandard way. This is different from how I use it in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.00545.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.00545.pdf (which is largely about preventing side-channels and security vulnerabilities in realistic simulator environments) or how Bostrom's uses it. In this paper, the containment problem is defined as executing a Turing machine for unbounded steps, iff it does not cause harm, given a function which defines whether an output counts as harm. They use a Godelian argument to show that this is incomputable, because a program could simulate the simulator, and condition its behavior in a way that creates a contradiction. This is a toy problem which sort of vaguely rhymes with AI containment and AI safety, but contributes nothing to either of them. A real-world simulation environment wouldn't have infinite computation; there would be a finite bound, and "the AI reached the end of the simulation period without making up its mind about what it would do" is just an expected result which means the AI hasn't been proven safe.