4 ms·

It doesn’t seem prohibited by the rules, in any case, and I would assume that Eliezer cares more about any real-life progress for Friendly AI than about strict

by jcl 18y ago

It doesn’t seem prohibited by the rules, in any case, and I would assume that Eliezer cares more about any real-life progress for Friendly AI than about strict roleplaying in a simulation where only one other person will know what happened. The rules state: "The AI party may not offer any real-world considerations to persuade the Gatekeeper party." I'd say that a real-world increase in the likelihood of a safe AI counts as a real-world consideration. And if you're going to assume Eliezer is not above bending the rules, you might as well assume he's not above offering $1000 bills. There's no way for us to know either way.

MikeCapone 18y ago
I think it depends how you define "real world considerations". The spirit of the rule seems to be about bribes, not about anything that can have an impact on the outside world; keeping the AI in the box or letting it out both will have "real world considerations", in a way. Pointing out whatthe impact of that choice might be is hardly equivalent to bribing someone -- it's just convincing him that one outcome is more desirable than the other, and convincing the gatekeeper is what the experiment is all about.
- jcl 18y ago
  Well, yes, you could define "real world considerations" as "only tangible items", and then Eliezer could be making this argument, and people could be accepting it. But I still think they would be doing so in error. Just as we can't be sure how Eliezer is interpreting the rules, future AI researchers can't be sure how valid the results of the experiment are. Since the meta-argument depends on the results of this experiment convincing these researchers, the meta-argument shouldn't be accepted. Heck, if the gatekeeper player is shown that the meta-argument exists, he should realize that the researchers will also come up with the meta-argument as a likely explanation for the AI getting out of the box, leading the researchers to further disregard the results of the experiment. Eliezer would do just as well to argue that a loss would discourage him from further safe AI research, or that the $10 forfeiture would deprive him of valuable research-related pizza.

by jcl 18y ago

MikeCapone 18y ago

I think it depends how you define "real world considerations". The spirit of the rule seems to be about bribes, not about anything that can have an impact on the outside world; keeping the AI in the box or letting it out both will have "real world considerations", in a way. Pointing out whatthe impact of that choice might be is hardly equivalent to bribing someone -- it's just convincing him that one outcome is more desirable than the other, and convincing the gatekeeper is what the experiment is all about.

jcl 18y ago
Well, yes, you could define "real world considerations" as "only tangible items", and then Eliezer could be making this argument, and people could be accepting it. But I still think they would be doing so in error. Just as we can't be sure how Eliezer is interpreting the rules, future AI researchers can't be sure how valid the results of the experiment are. Since the meta-argument depends on the results of this experiment convincing these researchers, the meta-argument shouldn't be accepted. Heck, if the gatekeeper player is shown that the meta-argument exists, he should realize that the researchers will also come up with the meta-argument as a likely explanation for the AI getting out of the box, leading the researchers to further disregard the results of the experiment. Eliezer would do just as well to argue that a loss would discourage him from further safe AI research, or that the $10 forfeiture would deprive him of valuable research-related pizza.