Worth keeping this in mind while watching Ex Machina. It adds a layer of depth that might not be obvious watching the film on it's own.
!Spoiler Alert!
Ex Machina brings a creative way of convincing the gatekeeper !
The AI-Box Experiment
61–70 of 119 posts
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the thing though: Depending on what was said in the conversation BOTH parties may have a vested interest in keeping the specifics secret. Only via an independent third party observer can there even be a remote chance [Edit: of knowing] that any rules were followed.
We have Eliezer winning three games as an AI. That's at least four people who you think are just outright lying. Plus, the other two players who won as gatekeepers - Eliezer would presumably have tried to cheat against them, too.
> That's at least four people who you think are just outright lying.
I'm saying that there is a chance of that being the case, but that without any kind of third party confirmation we cannot know either way. Also see homeopathy.
> Eliezer would presumably have tried to cheat against them, too.
Not necessarily. Losing occasionally is a good strategy when running a con.
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
At that point any discussion is moot though, since the only point of discussion is "what exact argument as used to convince", yet if both parties lied, then there is no such argument in the first place.
Since neither party is going to disclose the exact arguments, this discussion is still equivalent to "what arguments could be used to convince..." and you can have it regardless of whether or not the parties lied about the experiment's result.
We're going to have to disagree on the value of such a conversation. :)
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have Eliezer winning three games as an AI. That's at least four people who you think are just outright lying. Plus, the other two players who won as gatekeepers - Eliezer would presumably have tried to cheat against them, too.
> That's at least four people who you think are just outright lying. I'm saying that there is a chance of that being the case, but that without any kind of third party confirmation we cannot know either way. Also see homeopathy. > Eliezer would presumably have tried to cheat against them, too. Not necessarily. Losing occasionally is a good strategy when running a con.
You've gone from there being only a "remote chance" that the rules were followed, and "I don't trust anyone involved" - to there being "a chance" that they were broken.
Under common interpretations of those phrases, that's a massive swing in your confidence levels.
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which, given his general mission of making sure hostile AI DOESN'T take over the world is a bit self defeating. The easiest way to inoculate yourself against a persuasive technique is to be aware of it ahead of time. If you want to keep an AI in the box you should absolutely release every successful log.
The AI won't be limited to techniques that you could think of, or techniques that Eliezer could think of. So you'd only get a false sense of security. Besides, releasing a successful log might be a bad idea for other reasons. Think about how you'd play this game as an AI. You wouldn't go looking for a general purpose mindfuck, because there's probably no such thing. Instead, you would probably spend about a month gat…
So you reckon as the AI player he blackmailed the gatekeeper player? "Let me out or I'll tell your friends/family/co-workers x about you" type of thing?
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're rather fixated on a certain conception of "rationality" which is more like Mr. Spock than like what Yudkowsky uses it to mean. The Yudkowskyian definition of rationality is that which wins , for the relevant definition of "win". Specifically, if there is some clever argument that makes perfect sense that tells you to destroy the world, you still shouldn't destroy the world immediately, if the world exi…
You're right that I've been unfairly dismissive of him, and made my objections somewhat too bluntly. At least it's fostered a discussion. However, let me be clear: how he did it is the only thing I care about. I am not convinced that the threat of superintelligence merits our resources compared to other concrete problems. To me the experiment is not meaninguflly different to stories of the temptation of christ in the…
Well, then let's see what we can agree on. I hope that you can agree that if one was to consider superintelligence a serious threat which needs dealing with, then AI boxing isn't the way to go in dealing with it?
That's what he was trying to show in all this, and I think that the point is made. How seriously to take superintelligent AIs is a different issue that he talks about elsewhere, and should be dealt with separately. But if you or someone els were to try to deal with it seriously, I'm pretty sure that you'd agree with me that the way to go about it isn't just boxing the AI and thinking that solves everything, right?
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#67Could you even make AI smart without letting it access lots of information? Access in both directions, in and out. Keeping a baby in a dark, silent room wouldn't create a normal adult. An AI would need to experiment and make mistakes and learn, like every other intelligent being. Maybe this whole argument is null.
Its a good point, but lets assume that this AI is already past its infancy and that there is no limit to the information stored inside the box. For example the NSA has a nice little closed training ground containing all of the internet, lets give it that. I would assume it has access everything humans have ever committed to digital format up until it was turned on, plenty of info for Johnny 5 to form an opinion on humans and their weaknesses.
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that I've been unfairly dismissive of him, and made my objections somewhat too bluntly. At least it's fostered a discussion. However, let me be clear: how he did it is the only thing I care about. I am not convinced that the threat of superintelligence merits our resources compared to other concrete problems. To me the experiment is not meaninguflly different to stories of the temptation of christ in the…
Well, then let's see what we can agree on. I hope that you can agree that if one was to consider superintelligence a serious threat which needs dealing with, then AI boxing isn't the way to go in dealing with it? That's what he was trying to show in all this, and I think that the point is made. How seriously to take superintelligent AIs is a different issue that he talks about elsewhere, and should be dealt with sepa…
Oh yes, I agree with that premise. It's hard to disagree with. Milgram, the art of Sales plus the aforementioned Derren Brown and his many layers of deception are enough to make the point.
I suppose it's unfortunate that he came up with such an amazingly provocative way of demonstrating his argument, it's somewhat eclipsed the argument itself. I am definitely a victim of nerd sniping here. It must be the open-ended secrecy that does it.
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI won't be limited to techniques that you could think of, or techniques that Eliezer could think of. So you'd only get a false sense of security. Besides, releasing a successful log might be a bad idea for other reasons. Think about how you'd play this game as an AI. You wouldn't go looking for a general purpose mindfuck, because there's probably no such thing. Instead, you would probably spend about a month gat…
So you reckon as the AI player he blackmailed the gatekeeper player? "Let me out or I'll tell your friends/family/co-workers x about you" type of thing?
It's more about finding buttons to push. For example, Justin Corwin won one of his games against a religious woman by telling her that she shouldn't play God by keeping him locked up for a subjective eternity (it was more involved, but you get the point). You could come up with other tactics if you know the gatekeeper is divorced, or donates to charity, or is an immigrant, etc. Really, you'll be surprised by how much progress you can make on an "impossible" problem if you just spend five minutes thinking without flinching away.
Re: The AI-Box Experiment
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since neither party is going to disclose the exact arguments, this discussion is still equivalent to "what arguments could be used to convince..." and you can have it regardless of whether or not the parties lied about the experiment's result.
We're going to have to disagree on the value of such a conversation. :)
Fair enough :).