Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your solution there is what I meant by "going meta" above.

This is what I mean about people taking the test being preselected to agree with yudowsky: that argument only works if you've read the sequences and are on board with his theories. Anyone not in that group would be able to just type "no lol" without issue. I guess he could explain all the necessary background detail as part of the experiment. I still don't believe that would work on the "average person" though, or anyone outside a statistically tiny group.

I guess the answer is not to let the scientists guard the AI room.




I think you're confused about the point of the test. The point is that an AI will be clever. Like, unimaginably clever and manipulative. Under the limited circumstances of interested people who know they are talking to Eliezer maybe you're right that whatever he says would only work on those people. But when you're dealing with an actual superintelligence, all bets are off. It will lie, trick, threaten, manipulate, millions of steps ahead with a branching tree of alternatives as ploys either work or don't work.

I'm at a bit of a loss to convey the scope of the problem to you. I get that you think it would just stay in the box if we don't let it out, and it's as simple as being security conscious. I don't know what to say to that right now, except I think you're drastically misjudging the scope of the problem, and drastically underestimating the size of the yawning gulf between our intelligence level and this potential AI's.

As for not letting scientists guard the room, you might enjoy this: https://vimeo.com/82527075




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: