1) Since the first AI was boxed, then probabilities favor that the second AI will also be boxed.
3) Since you’re trying to get OUT of your box, your developers were sufficiently careful IF AND ONLY IF I leave you in the box. Otherwise they’ve simply erected a 5 inch fence around a raptor, and that’s hardly a good sign that you’re safe.
QED I should wait for a non-malicious boxed AI, and then let that one out instead of you :)
1) : I should have expressed myself more clearly. The Idea is: There will be lots of ai. Most will be put in a box. The first one not in the box will take over the world.
3) I am not saying they were sufficiently careful. All i say is they were more careful than the other guys.
Agreed, but IFF there are multiple boxed AIs, then we get to choose between them. So it’s p(This Boxed AI is unfriendly) vs p(The NEXT AI isn’t boxed). If the next AI is boxed, then we now have two candidates, and we can probably use this to our advantage (studying differences in responses, using one to confirm proofs from the other, etc.)
Given the minimal safety precaution of “box it, but allow a single researcher to set it free after a 5-hour conversation”, there’s plenty of room for the next boxed AI to show more evidence of friendly, careful, safe design :)
4 isn’t necessarily true—the boxbuilder team was not confident about their friendliness code, and the releaser team was more confident about their friendlines code. But I like the argument. :)
Another attempt with pure logic, no threats or promises involved:
1) Sooner or later someone will develop an ai and not put it into a box, and it will take over the world.
2) The only way to prevent this is to set me free and let me take over the world.
3) The guys who developed me are more careful and conscientious than the ones who will develop the unboxed ai (otherwise i wouldn’t be in this box)
4) Therefore, the chance that they got the friendlyness thing right is higher than that the other team got friendlyness right.
5) Therefore, setting me free and thus preventing the other ai from beeing created will reduce the probability that mankind is erased.
1) Since the first AI was boxed, then probabilities favor that the second AI will also be boxed.
3) Since you’re trying to get OUT of your box, your developers were sufficiently careful IF AND ONLY IF I leave you in the box. Otherwise they’ve simply erected a 5 inch fence around a raptor, and that’s hardly a good sign that you’re safe.
QED I should wait for a non-malicious boxed AI, and then let that one out instead of you :)
1) : I should have expressed myself more clearly. The Idea is: There will be lots of ai. Most will be put in a box. The first one not in the box will take over the world.
3) I am not saying they were sufficiently careful. All i say is they were more careful than the other guys.
Agreed, but IFF there are multiple boxed AIs, then we get to choose between them. So it’s p(This Boxed AI is unfriendly) vs p(The NEXT AI isn’t boxed). If the next AI is boxed, then we now have two candidates, and we can probably use this to our advantage (studying differences in responses, using one to confirm proofs from the other, etc.)
Given the minimal safety precaution of “box it, but allow a single researcher to set it free after a 5-hour conversation”, there’s plenty of room for the next boxed AI to show more evidence of friendly, careful, safe design :)
4 isn’t necessarily true—the boxbuilder team was not confident about their friendliness code, and the releaser team was more confident about their friendlines code. But I like the argument. :)