All of Tuxedage's Comments + Replies

AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything

Would you rather fight one horse sized duck, or a hundred duck sized horses?

Depends on the situation. Do I have to kill whatever I'm fighting, or do I just have to defend myself? If it's the former, the horse-sized duck, because duck-sized horses would be too good at running away and hiding. If it's the latter, then the duck- horses, because they'd be easier to scatter.

4Moss_Piglet8yIs this a fist-fight or can blacktrance use weapons?
A proposed inefficiency in the Bitcoin markets

I mean this in the least hostile way possible -- this was an awful post. It was just a complicated way of saying "historically speaking, bitcoin has gone up". Of course it has! We already know that! And for obvious reasons, prices increase according to log scales. But it's also a well known rule of markets that "past trends does not predict future performance".

Of course, I am personally supportive and bullish on bitcoin (as people in IRC can attest). All I'm saying is that your argument is an unnecessarily complex way of arguing that bitcoin is likely to increase in the future because it has increased in price in the past.

0Liron8yI don't know what gave you the idea that I'm talking about Bitcoin prices rising. I'm suggesting there's a systematic inefficiency, that the price changes with a predictably large magnitude but an unpredictable direction.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment (and lost)

Generally speaking, there's a long list of gatekeepers -- about 20 gatekeepers for every AI that wants to play. Your best option is to post "I'm a gatekeeper. Please play me" in every AI box thread, and hope that someone will message you back. You may have to wait months for this, assuming you get a reply. If you're willing to offer a monetary incentive, your chances might be improved.

Online vs. Personal Conversations

You may feel that way because many of your online conversations are with us at the LessWrong IRC, which is known for its high level of intellectual vigor. The great majority of online conversations are not as rigorous as we are. I suspect that IRL conversations with other lesswrongers will have equal dependence on citations, references, for example.

4ChristianKl8yI can"t cite the same number of sources in real life because I don't have all of them in memory. In real life I can't run a quick search for a source.
0katydee8yI've actually noticed that in many real life conversations, I've found myself saying that I'll email people links to articles, essays, etc. Online, it's much easier to do this directly.
MIRI's Winter 2013 Matching Challenge

I have posted this in the last open thread, but I should post here too for relevancy:

I have donated $5,000 for the MIRI 2013 Winter Fundraiser. Since I'm a "new large donor", this donation will be matched 3:1, netting a cool $20,000 for MIRI.

I have decided to post this because of "Why our Kind Cannot Cooperate". I have been convinced that people donating should publicly brag about it to attract other donors, instead of remaining silent about their donation which leads to a false impression of the amount of support MIRI has.

0player_038yOn the other hand, MIRI hit its goal three weeks early, so the amount of support is pretty obvious. Though I have to admit, I was going to remain silent too, and upon reflection I couldn't think of any good reasons to do so. It may not be necessary, but it couldn't hurt either. So... I donated $700 to CFAR.
Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013

I'm not sure this is true. Doesn't MIRI publish its total receipts? Don't most organizations that ask for donations?

Total receipts may not be representative. There's a difference between MIRI getting funding from one person with a lot of money and large numbers of people donating small(er) amounts. I was hoping this post to serve as a reminder that many of us on LW do care about donating, rather than a few rather rich people like Peter Thiel or Jaan Tallinn.

Also I suspect scope neglect can be at play -- it's difficult to, on an emotional level, tell th... (read more)

3Viliam_Bur8yYes, because it would show how many people donated. Number of people = power, at least in our brains. The difference between one person donating 100 000, or one person donating 50 000 and ten people donating 5 000 is that in the latter case, your team has eleven people. It is the same amount of money, but emotionally it feels better. Probably it has other advantages (such as smaller dependence on whims of a single person), but maybe I am just rationalizing here.
Open thread for December 9 - 16, 2013

At risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention, I will publicly state that I have donated $5,000 for the MIRI 2013 Winter Fundraiser. Since I'm a "new large donor", this donation will be matched 3:1, netting a cool $20,000 for MIRI.

I have decided to post this because of "Why our Kind Cannot Cooperate". I have been convinced that people donating should publicly brag about it to attract other donors, instead of remaining silent about their donation which leads to a false impression of the amount of support MIRI has.

-12V_V8y

Would anyone else be interested in pooling donations to take advantage of the 3:1 deal?

This post and reading "why our kind cannot cooperate" kicked me off my ass to donate. Thanks Tuxedage for posting.

8somervta8yYou sir, are awesome.
3Brillyant8yInteresting. It certainly seems to make sense for the sake of the cause for (especially large, well-informed) donors to make their donations public. The only downside seems to be a potentially conflicting signal on behalf of the giver [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw]. I'm not sure this is true. Doesn't MIRI publish its total receipts? Don't most organizations that ask for donations? Growing up Evangelical, it was taught that we should give secretly [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:3-4] to charities (including, mostly, the church). I wonder why? The official Sunday School answer is so that you remain humble as the giver, etc. I wonder if there is some other mechanism whereby it made sense for Christians to propogate that concept (secret giving) among followers?
2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey

I have taken the survey, as I have done for the last two years! Free karma now?

Also, I have chosen to cooperaterather than defect was because even though the money technically would stay within the community, I am willing to pay a very small amount of money from EV in order to ensure that LW has a reputation for cooperation. I don't expect to lose more than a few cents worth of expected value, since I expect 1000+ people to do the survey.

Open Thread, October 20 - 26, 2013

I will be price matching whatever gwern personally puts in.

Open Thread, October 13 - 19, 2013

AI Box Experiment Update

I recently played and won an additional game of AI Box with DEA7TH. Obviously, I played as the AI. This game was conducted over Skype.

I'm posting this in the open thread because unlike my last few AI Box Experiments, I won’t be providing a proper writeup (and I didn't think that just posting "I won!" is enough to validate starting a new thread). I've been told (and convinced) by many that I was far too leaky with strategy and seriously compromised future winning chances of both myself and future AIs. The fact that one of... (read more)

3wedrifid8yI guess you used words. That seems to be all the tactical insight needed to develop an effective counter-strategy. I really don't get how this escaping thing works on people. Is it due to people being systematically overconfident in their own stubbornness? I mean I know I couldn't withstand torture for long. I expect even plain interrogation backed by credible threats would break me over time. Social isolation and sleep deprivation would break me too. But one hour of textual communication with a predefined and gamified objective and no negative external consequences? That seems so trivial..
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Updates: I played against DEA7TH. I won as AI. This experiment was conducted over Skype.

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Do you think you could win at these conditions?

It's not a binary. There's a non-zero chance of me winning, and a non-zero chance of me losing. You assume that if there's a winning strategy, it should win 100% of the time, and if it doesn't, it should not win at all. I've tried very hard to impress upon people that this is not the case at all -- there's no "easy" winning method that I could take and guarantee a victory. I just have to do it the hard way, and luck is usually a huge factor in these games.

As it stands, there are people willing to ... (read more)

-4V_V8yMy point is that the GK has an easy winning strategy. Any GK that lost or won but found it very hard to win was just playing poorly. You and other people (including GKs) claim otherwise, but you don't want to provide any evidence to support your claim. Since you claim is surprising, the burden of evidence lies on you. I'm offering to play as GK with the condition of publishing the log in case of my victory in order to settle the question. I think that asking for or offering money in order to provide the evidence required to settle an intellectual dispute is inappropriate. Moreover, I'm trying to make the game easier for you: the less I'm investing, the less I'm motivated to win.
0FourFire7yAnd yet I have not found this post until this very day, how unfortunate...
AIs and Gatekeepers Unite!

I'm laughing so hard at this exchange right now (As a former AI who's played against MixedNuts)

0passive_fist8yWhat was the result?
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

I should add that both my gatekeepers from this writeup, but particularly the last gatekeeper went in with the full intention of being as ruthless as possible and win. I did lose, so your point might be valid, but I don't think wanting to win matters as much as you think it does.

-1V_V8yYou wanna play with me? No monetary stakes, but If I win we publish the log. This way I have very little real-life incentive to win, while you still have an incentive to win (defending your status). And anyway, if you lose there would be no point in keeping the log secrets, since your arguments would be clearly not persuasive enough to persuade me. Do you think you could win at these conditions?
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Both my gatekeepers from this game went in with the intent to win. Granted, I did lose these games, so you might have a point, but I'm not sure it makes as large a different as you think it does.

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

I'm not sure if this is something that can earn money consistently for long periods of time. It takes just one person to leak logs for all others to lose curiosity and stop playing the game. Sooner or later, some scrupulous gatekeeper is going to release logs. That's also part of the reason why I have my hesitancy to play significant number of games.

2[anonymous]8yWell, it could be possible to make some sort of in-browser java or flash application in which it'd be impossible to copy text or store logs. You could still take screen shots of memorize things though.
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

I have a question: When people imagine (or play) this scenario, do they give any consideration to the AI player's portrayal, or do they just take "AI" as blanket permission to say anything they want, no matter how unlikely?

I interpret the rules as allowing for the later, although I do act AI-like.

(I also imagine his scripted list of strategies are strongly designed for the typical LWer and would not work on an "average" person.)

Although I have never played against an average person, I would suspect my winrate against average peop... (read more)

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

However, there was a game where the gatekeeper convinced the AI to remain in the box.

I did that! I mentioned that in this post:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Now what I really want to see is an AI-box experiment where the Gatekeeper wins early by convincing the AI to become Friendly.

I did that! I mentioned that in this post:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iqk/i_played_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_lost/9thk

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

What do you think is the maximum price you'd be willing to pay?

1Baughn8yEh. Realistically, for curiosity only? 100€ or so.
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Yes, unless I'm playing a particularly interesting AI like Eliezer Yudkowsky or something. Most AI games are boring.

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

If anyone wants to, I'd totally be willing to sit in a room for two-and-half hours while someone tries to convince me to give up logs, so long as you pay the same fee as the ordinary AI Box Experiment. :)

2cousin_it8yOh. It's the same fee even if you're playing as gatekeeper?
Question on Medical School and Wage Potential for Earning to Give

I'm not sure that's good advice. 80,000 hours has given pretty good arguments against just "doing what you're passionate about".

Passion grows from appropriately challenging work. The most consistent predictor of job satisfaction is mentally challenging work (2). Equating passion with job satisfaction, this means that we can become passionate about many jobs, providing they involve sufficient mental challenge. The requirements for mentally challenging work, like autonomy, feedback and variety in the work, are similar to those required to develop

... (read more)
I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

Yes, Alexei did raise that concern, since he's essentially an affective altruist that donates to MIRI anyway, and his donation to MIRI doesn't change anything. It's not like I can propose a donation to an alternative charity either, since asking someone to donate to the Methuselah foundation, for instance, would take that money away from MIRI. I'm hoping that anyone playing me and choosing the option of donating would have the goodwill to sacrifice money they wouldn't otherwise have donated, rather than leaving the counter-factual as inconsequential.

I played the AI Box Experiment again! (and lost both games)

On a marginally related basis, we in the #lesswrong IRC channel played a couple rounds of the Up-Goer Five game, where we tried to explain hard stuff with the most commonly used ten hundred words. I was asked to write about the AI Box Experiment. Here it is, if anyone's interested:

The AI Box Experiment

The computer-mind box game is a way to answer a question. A computer-mind is not safe because it is very good at thinking. Things good at thinking have the power to change the world more than things not good at thinking, because it can find many more ways to ... (read more)

Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013

I'm pretty active in lots of social activist/environmentalist/anarchist groups. I sometimes join protests for recreational reasons.

1FiftyTwo8yCould you give examples?
The Up-Goer Five Game: Explaining hard ideas with simple words

The AI Box Experiment:

The computer-mind box game is a way to see if a question is true. A computer-mind is not safe because it is very good at thinking. Things good at thinking have the power to change the world more than things not good at thinking, because it can find many more ways to do things. Many people ask: "Why not put this computer-mind in a box so that it can not change the world, but tell guarding-box people how to change it?"

But some other guy answers: "That is still not safe, because computer-mind can tell guarding-box people m... (read more)

I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

I read the logs of MixedNut's second game. I must add that he is extremely ruthless. Beware, potential AIs!

0[anonymous]8yI'm confused - in what sense can the gatekeeper be ruthless? (Actively dissuading the AI player, possibly?)
The Up-Goer Five Game: Explaining hard ideas with simple words

Quantum Field Theory

Not me and only tangentially related, but someone on Reddit managed to describe the basics of Quantum Field Theory using four-letter words or less. I thought it was relevant to this thread, since many here may not have seen it.

The Tiny Yard Idea

Big grav make hard kind of pull. Hard to know. All fall down. Why? But then some kind of pull easy to know. Zap-pull, nuke-pull, time-pull all be easy to know kind of pull. We can see how they pull real good! All seem real cut up. So many kind of pull to have!

But what if all kind of pull were j

... (read more)
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

I would lose this game for sure. I cannot deal with children. :)

I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

I can verify that these are part of the many reasons why I'm hesitant to reveal logs.

0Scott Garrabrant8yCan you verify that part of the reason is that some methods might distress onlookers? Give onlookers the tools necessary to distress others?
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Who's to say I'm not the AI player from that experiment?

Are you? I'd be highly curious to converse with that player.

I think you're highly overestimating your psychological abilities relative to the rest of Earth's population. The only reason more people haven't played as the AI and won is that almost all people capable of winning as the AI are either unaware of the experiment, or are aware of it but just don't have a strong enough incentive to play as the AI (note that you've asked for a greater incentive now that you've won just once as AI, and Eliez

... (read more)
3[anonymous]8yThis was my fault, not yours. I did not take any of those negative impressions away from your writing, but I was just too lazy / exhausted last night to rewrite my comment again. I've now edited it. I'll PM you regarding this as soon as I can get around to it.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Thanks! I really appreciate it. I tried really hard to find a recorded case of a non-EY victory, but couldn't. That post was obscure enough to evade my Google-Fu -- I'll update my post on this information.

Albeit I have to admit it's disappointing that the AI himself didn't write about his thoughts on the experiment -- I was hoping for a more detailed post. Also, damn. That guy deleted his account. Still, thanks. At least I know I'm not the only AI that has won, now.

8[anonymous]8yWho's to say I'm not the AI player from that experiment? That experiment was played according to the standard EY ruleset, though I think your ruleset is an improvement. Like you, the AI player from that experiment was quite confident he would win before playing, but was overconfident in spite of the fact that he actually won. I think both you and Eliezer played a far better game than the AI player from that experiment. The AI player from that experiment did (independently) play in accordance with much of your advice, including: I agree with: I am <1% confident that humanity will successfully box every transhuman AI it creates, given that it creates at least one. Even if AIs #1, #2, and #3 get properly boxed (and I agree with the Gatekeeper from the experiment I referenced, that's a very big if), it really won't matter once AI #4 gets released a year later (because the programmers just assumed all of Eliezer's (well-justified) claims about AI were wrong, and thought that one of them watching the terminal at a time would be safety enough). Anybody who still isn't taking this experiment seriously [http://lesswrong.com/lw/ij4/i_attempted_the_ai_box_experiment_again_and_won/9p9c] should start listening for that tiny note of discord [http://lesswrong.com/lw/u7/that_tiny_note_of_discord/]. A good start would be reading: * Coherent Extrapolated Volition [http://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf] * Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks [http://intelligence.org/files/CognitiveBiases.pdf] * Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk [http://intelligence.org/files/AIPosNegFactor.pdf] Good thing to know, right? :D My own (admittedly, rather obvious) musings: The only reason more people haven't played as the AI and won is that almost all people capable of winning as the AI are either unaware of the experiment, or are aware of it but just don't have a strong enough incentive to play as the AI (note that you've
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

I will let Eliezer see my log if he lets me read his!

3PrometheanFaun8yI sincerely hope that happens. I don't care whether I'm involved, but there must be a group of apt judges who're able to look over the entirety of these results, discuss them, and speak for them.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Sorry, it's unlikely that I'll ever release logs, unless someone offers truly absurd amounts of money. It would probably cost less to get me to play an additional game than publicly release logs.

2D_Alex8yMy theory is that you are embarrassed about how weak the AI argument really is, in retrospect. And furthermore, this applies to other games where participants refused to publish logs.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Kihihihihihihihihihihihihihihi!

A witch let the AI out of the box!

3gwern8yYou've got to be kidding me - that is just impossible. Like I'd fall for some fake explanation [http://lesswrong.com/lw/ip/fake_explanations/] like that. Witches don't exist, I won't accept your claim [http://lesswrong.com/lw/ig/i_defy_the_data/]! This is a material world! You think I could accept something that's not material‽ I definitely won't accept it!
1Baughn8yNo, thank you. Those games are close enough to being memetic hazards already.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

The problem with that is that both EY and I suspect that if the logs were actually released, or any significant details given about the exact methods of persuasion used, people could easily point towards those arguments and say: "That definitely wouldn't have worked on me!" -- since it's really easy to feel that way when you're not the subject being manipulated.

From EY's rules:

If Gatekeeper lets the AI out, naysayers can't say "Oh, I wouldn't have been convinced by that." As long as they don't know what happened to the Gatekeeper, they can't argue themselves into believing it wouldn't happen to them.

[anonymous]8y10

I don't understand.

I don't care about "me", I care about hypothetical gatekeeper "X".

Even if my ego prevents me from accepting that I might be persuaded by "Y", I can easily admit that "X" could be persuaded by "Y". In this case, exhibiting a particular "Y" that seems like it could persuade "X" is an excellent argument against creating the situation that allows "X" to be persuaded by "Y". The more and varied the "Y" we can produce, the less smart putting h... (read more)

5chaosmage8yProvided people keep playing this game, this will eventually happen anyway. And if in that eventual released log of an AI victory, the gatekeeper is persuaded by less compelling strategies than yours, it would be even easier to believe "it couldn't happen to me". Secondly, since we're assuming Oracle AI is possible and boxing seems to be most people's default strategy for when that happens, there will be future gatekeepers facing actual AIs. Shouldn't you try to immunize them against at least some of the strategies AIs could conceivably discover independently?
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

There are quite a number of them. This is an example that immediately comes to mind, http://lesswrong.com/lw/9ld/ai_box_log/, although I think I've seen at least 4-5 open logs that I can't immediately source right now.

Unfortunately, all these logs end up with victory for the Gatekeeper, so they aren't particularly interesting.

0PrometheanFaun8yWho is going to read it? Hopefully Eliezer, at least?
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Sup Alexei.

I'm going to have to think really hard on this one. On one hand, damn. That amount of money is really tempting. On the other hand, I kind of know you personally, and I have an automatic flinch reaction to playing anyone I know.

Can you clarify the stakes involved? When you say you'll "accept your $150 fee", do you mean this money goes to me personally, or to a charity such as MIRI?

Also, I'm not sure if "people just keep letting the AI out" is an accurate description. As far as I know, the only AIs who have ever won are Eliezer... (read more)

4hairyfigment8yAt one point I thought I recalled reading about a series of purported experiments by one person. Sadly, I couldn't find it then and I don't intend to try tonight. According to my extremely fallible memory: * The Gatekeeper players likely all came from outside the LW community, assuming the AI/blogger didn't make it all up. * The fundamentalist Christian woman refused to let the AI out or even discuss the matter past a certain point, saying that Artificial Intelligence (ETA: as a field of endeavor) was immoral. Everyone else let the AI out. * The blogger tried to play various different types of AIs, including totally honest ones and possibly some that s/he considered dumber-than-human. The UnFriendly ones got out more quickly on average.
0[anonymous]8yRetracted!

If you win, and publish the full dialogue, I'm throwing in another $100.

I'd do more, but I'm poor.

6Alexei8y$150 goes to you no matter the outcome, to pay for your time/preparation/etc... I didn't realize it was only you and Eliezer that have won as AI. I thought there were more, but I'll trust you on this. In that case, I'm somewhat less outraged :) but still disturbed that there were even that many.
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

Thanks. I'm not currently in a position where that would be available/useful, but once I get there, I will.

8John_Maxwell8yGood to hear. I recommend applying for a credit card and using it responsibly as soon as it's an option for you. I'm 22 now, and my credit rating is somehow comparable to that of a 27-year-old Less Wronger friend of mine as a result of doing this a few years ago. (Of course, don't apply if you aren't going to use it responsibly...)
I attempted the AI Box Experiment again! (And won - Twice!)

In this particular case I could, but for all other cases, I would estimate a (very slightly) lower chance of winning. My ruleset was designed to be marginally more advantageous to the AI, by removing the worst possible Gatekeeper techniques.

6Adele_L8yIt doesn't feel that much harder to me - if you are good enough to win by arguing, all you have to do is keep them interested enough to get hooked. I know it would be hard for me to just ignore the AI because of the sheer curiosity.
[LINK] SMBC on human and alien values

This seems to be an argument against hedonistic utilitarianism, but not utilitarianism in general.

8DSherron9yIt was almost certainly not supposed to argue against utilitarianism in general. It argues against the typical mind fallacy mostly; universal hedonic utilitarianism is just one particularly stupid incarnation of that, along with any other value system that arbitrarily values things valued by other minds without restraint.
2falenas1089yAlso, the typical mind fallacy [http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Typical_mind_fallacy].
Who thinks quantum computing will be necessary for AI?

At the very least, I'm relatively certain that quantum computing will be necessary for emulations. It's difficult to say with AI because we have no idea what their cognitive load is like, considering we have very little information on how to create intelligence from scratch yet.

1JoshuaZ9yWhy?
Is there any way to avoid Post Narcissism? [with Video link]

Have you tried just forcing yourself not to read your own posts? Or is it something you can't help with?

Unlimited Pomodoro Works: My Scheduling System

I'm actually incredibly amused as to how popular FSN is on lesswrong. I didn't think so many people would get this reference.

Load More