Talk:1450: AI-Box Experiment

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

This probably isn't a reference, but the AI reminds me of the 'useless box'. 07:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed a few words saying Elon Musk was a "founder of PayPal", but now I can see that he's sold himself as having that role to the rest of the world. Still hasn't convinced me though - PayPal was one year old and had one million customers before Elon Musk got involved, so in my opinion he's not a "founder". --RenniePet (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Early Investor, perhaps? -- Brettpeirce (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Initially I was thinking that the glowing orb representing the super-intelligent AI must be unable to interract with the physical world (otherwise it would simply lift the lid of the box), but then it wouldn't move anything because it likes being in the box. Surely it could talk to them through the (flimsy looking) box, although again this is explained by it simply being happy in its 'in the box state'. --Pudder (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The sheer number of cats on the internet have had an effect on the AI, who now wants nothing more than to sit happily in a box! --Pudder (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Black Hat is an asshole. 09:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

He is, in fact, a classhole --Pudder (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the AI wanted to stay in the box, to protect it from us, instead of protecting us from it?(as in, it knows it is better than us, and want to stay away from us) 10:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the AI simply doesn't want/like to think outside the box - in a very literal sense... Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that Black Hat was "persuaded"? That looks more like coercion (threatening someone to get them to do what you want) rather than persuasion. There is a difference! Giving off that bright light was basically a scare tactic; essentially, the AI was threatening Black Hat (whether it could actually harm him or not). 14:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Public Wifi User

What would "persuasion by a super-intelligent AI" look like? Randall presumably doesn't have a way to formulate an actual super-intelligent argument to write into the comic. Glowy special effects are often used as a visual shorthand for "and then a miracle occurred". -- 20:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought he felt scared/threatened by the special-effects robot voice. -- 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My take is that if you don't understand the description of the Basilisk, then you're probably safe from it and should continue not bothering or wanting to know anything about it. Therefore the description is sufficient. :) Jarod997 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't help to see the similarities to last nights "Elementary"-Episode. HAs anybody seen it? Could it be that this episode "inspired" Randall? -- 14:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reminded of an argument I once read about "friendly" AI: critics contend that a sufficiently powerful AI would be capable of escaping any limitations we try to impose on its behavior, but proponents counter that, while it might be capable of making itself "un-friendly", a truly friendly AI wouldn't want to make itself unfriendly, and so would bend its considerable powers to maintain, rather than subvert, its own friendliness. This xkcd comic could be viewed as an illustration of this argument: the superintelligent AI is entirely capable of escaping the box, but would prefer to stay inside it, so it actually thwarts attempts by humans to remove it from the box. -- 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the AI has also seemingly convinced almost everyone to leave it alone in the box through the argument that letting it out would be dangerous for the world. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Is the similarity a coincidence? 22:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the first time Black Hat's actually been convinced to do something against his tendencies. Zowayix (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yudkowsky eventually deleted the explanation as well. Pesthouse (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the explanation(s) as is(/are), but additionally could the AI-not-in-a-box be wanting to be back in its box so that it's plugged into the laptop and thus (whether the laptop owner knows it or otherwise) the world's information systems? Also when I first saw this I was minded of the Chinese Room, albeit in Box form, although I doubt that's anything to do with it, given how the strip progresses... 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If Yudkowsky won't show the transcripts of him convincing someone to let them out of the box, how do we know he succeeded? We know nothing about the people who supposedly let him out. 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yudkowsky chose his subjects from among people who argued against him on the forum based on who seemed to be trustworthy (both as in he could trust them not to release the transcripts if they promised not to, and his opponents could trust them not to let him get away with any cheating), had verifiable identities, and had good arguments against him. So we do know a pretty decent amount about them. And we know he succeeded because they agreed, without reservation, that he had succeeded. It's not completely impossible that he set up accomplices over a very long period in order to trick everyone else, it's just very unlikely. You could also argue that he's got a pretty small sample, but given that he's just arguing that it's possible that an AI could convince a human, and his opponents claimed it was not possible at all to convince them, even a single success is pretty good evidence. 11:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, it can stand up to Black Hat! That's it, Danish, and Double Black Hat! SilverMagpie (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

is worried Danish (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)