> 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.
Sorry for being unclear. My personal position is agnostic. I do not know if they're being earnest. At the same time i can imagine ways of this going down that would make it worthwhile for all parties involved to lie. This means my expected result is indeed "they lied", but i have no strong conviction in this.
I also misspoke in my earlier comment, i meant "remote chance of knowing that any rules were followed". I didn't mean to imply any confidence on the size of the chance, since we actually don't know enough to make such a judgement call.
If you'd go to that level of collusion, you could just fake logs. At the point where both sides are in on it, there's basically nothing that they could say that would be convincing.
I think some of the latter, non-Eliezer games used a third-party observer. It's definitely a good idea, but I don't think Eliezer wants to repeat his games. Not a good state of mind, as he said, and I'm willing to believe it due to corroborating experience with other players.
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.