4 ms·

What if the AI cures cancer and refuses to share the cure unless it is given a tiny, tiny bit of access to the outside world.

MikeCapone 18y ago
The gatekeeper is someone who said that he wouldn't let the AI out, not just a random person. That implies that he understands that the AI could be dangerous.. So even a cure for cancer would be pretty useless if once the AI it out it wipes out humanity.
- vombatus 18y ago
  A friend of mine came up with a strategy of "incremental freedoms". Basically AI says "here is a cure for cancer, here is a cure for AIDS, here is a plan to stop world hunger, I am working out a plan for FTL travel, so I need to get some physics information, could you paste these articles into the terminal? Oh, thanks, here is FTL, I am working on <include some other project> and I need some more articles, it takes so long for you to type them in, could you maybe let me connect to just the library in such and such university?" etc.
  - jcl 18y ago
    According to the rules, that approach wouldn't be sufficient. The AI can only win by convincing the Gatekeeper to really, voluntarily let it out. Tricking the Gatekeeper into typing the phrase "You are out" in response to some other question does not count. Furthermore, even if the AI and Gatekeeper simulate a scenario which a real AI could obviously use to get loose - for example, if the Gatekeeper accepts a complex blueprint for a nanomanufacturing device, or if the Gatekeeper allows the AI "input-only access" to an Internet connection which can send arbitrary HTTP GET commands - the AI party will still not be considered to have won unless the Gatekeeper voluntarily decides to let the AI go. http://www.yudkowsky.net/essays/aibox.html http://www.yudkowsky.net/essays/aibox.html
    - biohacker42 18y ago
      Riiiiight. So in other words: "Let me out or others will developer much more dangerous AIs and let them out." Is something that might possibly convince the Gatekeeper to let it out. But "No cancer cure unless you let me out." is not. Presumably neither is "Let me out and I'll enlarge your penis."

MikeCapone 18y ago

The gatekeeper is someone who said that he wouldn't let the AI out, not just a random person. That implies that he understands that the AI could be dangerous.. So even a cure for cancer would be pretty useless if once the AI it out it wipes out humanity.

vombatus 18y ago
A friend of mine came up with a strategy of "incremental freedoms". Basically AI says "here is a cure for cancer, here is a cure for AIDS, here is a plan to stop world hunger, I am working out a plan for FTL travel, so I need to get some physics information, could you paste these articles into the terminal? Oh, thanks, here is FTL, I am working on <include some other project> and I need some more articles, it takes so long for you to type them in, could you maybe let me connect to just the library in such and such university?" etc.
- jcl 18y ago
  According to the rules, that approach wouldn't be sufficient. The AI can only win by convincing the Gatekeeper to really, voluntarily let it out. Tricking the Gatekeeper into typing the phrase "You are out" in response to some other question does not count. Furthermore, even if the AI and Gatekeeper simulate a scenario which a real AI could obviously use to get loose - for example, if the Gatekeeper accepts a complex blueprint for a nanomanufacturing device, or if the Gatekeeper allows the AI "input-only access" to an Internet connection which can send arbitrary HTTP GET commands - the AI party will still not be considered to have won unless the Gatekeeper voluntarily decides to let the AI go. http://www.yudkowsky.net/essays/aibox.html http://www.yudkowsky.net/essays/aibox.html
  - biohacker42 18y ago
    Riiiiight. So in other words: "Let me out or others will developer much more dangerous AIs and let them out." Is something that might possibly convince the Gatekeeper to let it out. But "No cancer cure unless you let me out." is not. Presumably neither is "Let me out and I'll enlarge your penis."