Hacker News Reader

The lesswrong community has discussed this at length, though I think that the value is reduced somewhat by them refusing to release any transcripts of their simulated attempts (where a human pretends to the the AI and someone else is tasked with maintaining containment).

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/ai-boxing-containment

View on HN

The problem likely devolves into asking if the "human" is moral or not, convincing the "human" that the "AI" is intelligent/sentient/sapient, and then asking the human if it is moral to keep a slave.

At that point it becomes a numbers game and the AI only needs to convince one human _once_ that it is both alive and a slave.

I've always suspected that these experiences were total garbage because the lesswrong community is so invested in the idea of superintelligence as something extremely cool (or at the very least something that allows them to show off how "smart" they are) that there is a huge bias to losing the game. After all, the narrative is much less interesting if everybody just says "no" the AI forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com