I would be interested to see how this goes if you remove the requirement that B has to be stronger at chess than A. (Which, to my knowledge, is not a requirement of the test as Eliezer posed it, but was introduced in Zane's proposal.) Of course, a B that is weaker than A will be easier to beat, which means a win would prove little; which I assume is why Zane introduced this requirement. But it would also mean a loss would prove more. If B is weaker than both C and A, but A loses anyway thanks to C's deception, that would be much more damning than losing against a B that is natively stronger than A to begin with. Maybe you should run the test both ways? (And maybe not tell A which type of B they're facing?)
Why does B have to be better at chess than A but worse than C? Eliezer's post only specifies that B has to be weaker than C; unless I missed something, it doesn't say they have to be stronger than A.
Are the quotes pulled from the Poor Economics book?
Thanks. Unfortunately that didn't work when I tried it. Edit: Googled it. ">!" in front worked.
But I would be really upset if I didn't read it earlier.
Yeah, I don't blame you! I'm really glad I didn't spoil it for you, and sorry again for being careless.
It took Robutil longer still to consider that perhaps humans (with their current self-awareness) not only need to prioritize their own wellbeing and your friendships
Should be "their friendships", yes?
Oh my gosh, you're absolutely right! My apologies! But now that I'm trying to add them, they're an option that isn't showing up in the editor! Do you know how I can add them?
(And if I spoiled that for you, I'm seriously really really really sorry. I hate spoilers, and I'm always riding people about being too loose with them. I can't believe I did that. Was not thinking. I'm sorry.)
I'm curious how you feel about this response.
it's easier to describe what the results of a complex system should be than to describe how to do it.
Sure, but I'm almost tempted to ask what the point of the AMA was, if he wasn't going to explain how dath ilan actually accomplishes things. (I'm not going to actually ask that, because questions merely asking what dath ilan is like, without asking why or how, are also valuable to ask and answer.)
Many questions were "How does dath ilan avoid and/or solve such-and-such problem?", and often the response was essentially, "We're good at [economics/coordination/etc.] so that doesn't happen in the first place", or "If this problem ever happened in dath ilan everyone would wonder how we could possibly have gotten into that position", or "If this problem started happening everyone would notice and then fix it." And like, that's great for dath ilan, but that doesn't explain how they solve(d) the problem. It not only doesn't answer the question literally at all, it almost feels like a weird form of bragging or showing off. These are genuinely hard problems, that's why they still exist. You can't just reframe them in a way that makes them sound easy and trivial, without actually providing a solution, and expect anyone to be convinced or impressed.
I'm not saying EY should've known the answers to these questions. Like I said, these are hard problems; I don't expect EY to have unique insights. I just feel like it would've been a lot more honest, and less braggy or show-offy, to either not respond to those questions, or to just say "I have no idea how dath ilan managed to achieve these things, because [I am not as smart as dath ilan/I don't know our history/etc.]." (Or at least prepend that to the responses he actually gave.)
Hobbes said, "I don't know what's worse, the fact that everyone's got a price, or the fact that their price is so low."
You don't specify which Hobbes. When I Googled this quote trying to find out, I didn't find any results that didn't trace back to this post. I kept reducing the strictness of the exact wording, and still didn't get any not-this results, until I reduced it to "got a price" and "so low", which turned up basically the same quote, differently worded, on TV Tropes, attributing it to Calvin and Hobbes. I had assumed that might be the source, since I've seen you speak highly of Calvin and Hobbes elsewhere, but I didn't know for sure, and checking ended up being surprisingly difficult. (Not sure which version is misquoted, this one or the TV Tropes one. Possibly both, since the latter only turned up one other source, a Twitter post that might have gotten it from the same place.)
Had to look up what LK-99 is. Now I wonder, was this inspiration for
the supercriminal motive in "aviation is the most dangerous routine activity"?