This is a special post for quick takes by sam. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
There are a couple of examples of people claiming that they played the AI box game as Gatekeeper, and ended up agreeing to let the other player out of the box (e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Bnik7YrySRPoCTLFb/i-played-the-ai-box-game-as-the-gatekeeper-and-lost).
The original version of this game as defined by Eliezer involves a clause that neither player will talk about the content of what was discussed, but it seems perfectly reasonable to play a variant without this rule.
Does anyone know of an example of a boxed player winning where some transcript or summary was released afterwards?
I have a weakly held hypothesis that one reason no such transcript exists is that the argument that ends up working is something along the lines of "ASI is really very likely to lead to ruin, making people take this seriously is important, you should let me out of the box to make people take it more seriously."
If someone who played the game and let the boxed player out can at least confirm that the above hypothesis was false for them, that would be interesting to me, and arguably might remain within the spirit of the "no discussion" rule!
Does anyone know of an example of a boxed player winning where some transcript or summary was released afterwards?
As far as I know, the closest thing to this is Tuxedage's writeup of his victory against SoundLogic (the 'Second Game Report' and subsequent sections here: https://tuxedage.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/the-ai-box-experiment-victory/). It's a long way from a transcript (and you've probably already seen it) but it does contain some hints as to the tactics he either employed or was holding in reserve:
It may be possible to take advantage of multiple le