(Untitled)

[maerdi]

I'm feeling a bit lonely and sad today. Does anyone have anything interesting they'd like to talk about?

Some possible suggestions:

• the AI in a box problem from one of patrissimo's recent posts.
• what causes dishwashers to be less effective and how one can improve their performance
• Fault Lines
• working alone versus working with a partner versus working as part

Comments

[maerdi]

I think the gatekeeper is pretending he really is the gatekeeper, though the rules do allow him to step out of character, which I find odd. You might like this write-up from the 'original' practitioner: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/shut-up-and-do.html

In particular, I found it interesting that he says he just won it the hard way (not by tricks).

[dragonmudd]

I think there's an important distinction that was implied but not given any attention in the original problem. The problem is stated as "could outsmart me" not "could outsmart someone". I am certain that it's much easier to write an AI such that there exists a person that the AI could outsmart and trick.

[neonelephant]

In pondering the role of "gatekeeper" I can think of many arguments that I'm not sure I'd be able to say no to "in real life", and there are many approaches that I can see an AI using: some logical, some more emotional, some carrot, and some stick.

I am not convinced, in the context of a contest of this sort between two people, that I could employ any of these arguments successfully.

I wonder if either of the people Eliezer played with have played Diplomacy.

[neonelephant]

Yeah, if trying to get the money it's hard for me to see how the gatekeeper can lose.

One of the anonymous commenters on Patri's post did write something thought-provoking about it.

[maerdi]

I'm trying not to read any spoilers just yet. It's interesting to pretend I'm the gatekeeper and try to figure out how the AI could hack me in 2 hours.

[maerdi]

Role-playing view, I guess. I mean, I'm trying to figure out how to hack one of my beliefs in 2 hours, or how to hack any given person's belief system in 2 hours. But I'm not limiting myself to this particular scenario. As far as I'm concerned, it's essentially equivalent to trying to get an atheist to believe in God or a devout Catholic to doubt God enough to take an extreme action in accordance with their new belief, though the action itself only takes a moment (that is, it doesn't have to be a long-term transformation).

[dragonmudd]

As far as I'm concerned, it's essentially equivalent to trying to get an atheist to believe in God or a devout Catholic to doubt God enough to take an extreme action in accordance with their new belief

I'm not sure I agree. The Gatekeeper could still believe in "I shouldn't let the AI out" but be convinced to do so reluctantly. Humans always do things that the know they shouldn't do.

[maerdi]

I'm okay with that-the goal is the action, not the belief, no matter how you get there; the belief is just the thing that seems to stand in the way of the goal. I was just giving an alternate scenario for the goal, since so many seem to have hang-ups with this particular set-up.

[dragonmudd]

I would say that a "true" atheist ... must be thouroughly convinced of their own powers of distinguishing good data and arguments from bad data and arguments.

I question what that has to do with being an atheist at all.

If such an atheist doubts their own abilities for even a moment, are they still an atheist?

Why wouldn't they be? (Although, I suppose this is just the contrapositive of your first statement)

[dragonmudd]

... said person still believes themselves to be sufficently good judge of character that they can distinguish "correct" people and "incorrect" people.

I definitely do not understand what you mean when you say "correct" people and "incorrect" people. The way I want to use it has absolutely nothing to do with one's theism. An atheist could exist that can't tell apples from oranges, that wouldn't make him/her any less of an atheist. Whether or not someone believes that there exists a God is orthogonal to whether or not they believe that are capable of accurate judgment of some type.