I have links to old LW posts in some articles and other places. What will happen with all these links?
It should be able to understand human language or it is (most likely) not dangerous.
I am getting this comment in different forms many times, so I will state again 3 main reasons why it is not exactly true:
1) The message is addressed to Young AI, not to full-blown superintelligence. Such Young AI will be time constraint but could have to make some pivotal act.
2) The message includes some our commitments, like Nelson attack and AI-Elf deal, so it provides some useful information to the AI about portability that it is in the simulation and some other useful things.
3) If AI is fully aware of all these reasons, it already created my mind model, so I am immortal :) Also, if it buys all these reasons, it will be less likely to kill us for atoms, as human atoms utility for AI is 10E-12, and any positive hypothetical utility of human existence will overweight it.
Why? if we have fullblown papercliper, which is coming of age, we are already doomed, and starting its bullshit detector will not make our situation any worse.
In fact, I am not describing here how to build such a trap, but I express our commitment to build the trap, in order to install uncertainty into any future AI if the trap exists and what it could be.
I think that real constructors of the trap will find the correct ways to make it effective and balance false positives with needed level of control.
It will kill humanity not because it will be annoyed, but for two main goals: its own safety, or to use human atoms.
Other variants also possible, I explored them here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mgf/a_map_agi_failures_modes_and_levels/
What if we fail to make them in time, and instead fooming non-human AI appear?
Surely, most arguments are weak, but it is not a problem, as we try all possible independent arguments, hoping that at least one will work. So, there is no reason to ignore putting weak arguments in the text of the message.
However, exactly this argument could be made stronger. It is intended to prevent FIRST thought about disobedience in AI. Thus AI, which acts based on this message, didn't think much about disobedience and its limits, and is not "superintelligent" in this topic, but rather clueless.
I reformulated the idea as following: AI can't know if there is a circuit trigger which will turn off the AI, as an attempt to check for the existence of such trigger will alarm this trigger. This idea should be clear to any AI before it starts to search for any triggers, and is based on our commitment to install such triggers in any AI we will create.
In other words, some future AIs will have "first treacherous thought alarm triggers", and some will not, but the AI risks starting these triggers when it starts to think first thoughts about existing of the triggers and thus it is unable to estimate the probability that the given triggers exist. This is true even for AIs which don't have any triggers, as they can't know it for sure.
(This is similar to Nelson's attack discussed later when we create uncertainty in any future AI by our precommitment to create some AIs with given properties.)
Another cash level is drawing visual map and when use visual field as a cash of all the elements of the problem.
Thanks! It is nice that we come to the wording "young AI" more or less independently. I tried to maximally stealmanning this approach and collect all ideas about messaging to the future AI. I will add your post in the bibliographic section.