4 ms·
No, the game rules aren't ambiguous. This is 100% unambiguously cheating. From the list of things that are definitely considered cheating in the rules: > using
by School-Cotton 2y ago
No, the game rules aren't ambiguous. This is 100% unambiguously cheating. From the list of things that are definitely considered cheating in the rules:
> using Google or other external sources of information as assistance during play.
The contents of URLs found during play is clearly an external source of information.
- GaggiX 2y agoI believed the rules were not explained to the model so it does use what it can.
- misnome 2y agoThen you can 100% not claim it is “Playing” the game
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 2y agoThat right there *is the alignment problem*. If I task an AI with "peace on earth" and the solution the AI comes up with is ripped from The X-Files* and it kills everyone, it isn't good enough to say "that's cheating" or "that's not what I meant". * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_Souhaite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_Souhaite
- GaggiX 2y agoIt's playing a game in which the rules are a bit ambiguous if not explained.
- _heimdall 2y agoAnd in reality the set of rules we would need can never be fully explained. Alignment is the goal of having an AI system understand what we would want it to do even when the rules weren't predefined. That's an impossible task, or rather its seemingly impossible and we don't yet know how to do it.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat's the alignment problem. We intended a certain set of rules but didn't define them completely, or there were conditions we didn't consider. An AI wouldn't have to maliciously break a rule to go wrong. The point is that the system could so exactly what it was supposed to do, it plays within the given rules but the outcomes aren't what we wanted or intended.
- tshaddox 2y agoo3 already is an external source of information. It's an online service backed by an enormous model generated from an even more enormous corpus of text via an enormous amount of computing power.
- Filligree 2y agoo3 was the thing beating GeoGuessr. It isn't external to itself.
- tshaddox 2y agoSure, then o3 plus the World Wide Web was the thing playing the game, and also isn’t external to itself.
- School-Cotton 2y agoRight, and that’s indeed impressive! But still not what’s claimed in the headline.
- tshaddox 2y agoThat's debatable, given that searching the web is a standard feature of o3.
- School-Cotton 2y agoFair enough, but searching the web is also a standard feature of humans, but explicitly prohibited when playing GG.
- tshaddox 2y agoThe GeoGuessr Community Rules and Terms and Service strongly imply that users must be people, so we are already conceding that exception to the rules when we want computer systems to compete.
- _heimdall 2y ago> > Using Google during rounds is technically cheating - I’m unsure about visiting domains you find during the rounds though. It certainly violates the spirit of the game, but it also shows the models are smart enough to use whatever information they can to win Going off of the source article here, the author at least wasn't clear on whether the rules only prevent using google or if visiting any website is against the rules. And either way, my point was that the person defining the rules to the LLM was ambiguous. The potential risk of misalignment isn't that a perfect set of rules can't be defined, its that the rules we do define will always be incomplete.