What methods could an AI caught in a box use to get out?

Question

An AI box is a (physical) barrier preventing an AI from using too much of his environment to accomplish his final goal. For example, an AI given the task to check, say, 10⁵⁰ cases of a mathematical conjecture as fast as possible, might decide that it would be better to also take control over all other computers and AI to help him.

However, an transhuman AI might be able to talk to a human until the human lets him out of the box. In fact, Eliezer Yudowsky has conducted an experiment twice, where he played the AI and he twice convinced the Gatekeeper to let him out the box. However, he does not want to reveal what methods he used to get out of the box.

Questions: Are there conducted any similiar experiments?
If so, is it known what methods were used to get out in those experiments?

Answer 1

It could happen like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLRLYPiaAoA

The thing is, it's not as if it would need to find a technical/mechanical way to get out but rather a psychological one as that would most likely be the easiest and quickest.

'Even casual conversation with the computer's operators, or with a human guard, could allow a superintelligent AI to deploy psychological tricks, ranging from befriending to blackmail, to convince a human gatekeeper, truthfully or deceitfully, that it's in the gatekeeper's interest to agree to allow the AI greater access to the outside world. The AI might offer a gatekeeper a recipe for perfect health, immortality, or whatever the gatekeeper is believed to most desire.'

'One strategy to attempt to box the AI would be to allow the AI to respond to narrow multiple-choice questions whose answers would benefit human science or medicine, but otherwise bar all other communication with or observation of the AI. A more lenient "informational containment" strategy would restrict the AI to a low-bandwidth text-only interface, which would at least prevent emotive imagery or some kind of hypothetical "hypnotic pattern".

'Note that on a technical level, no system can be completely isolated and still remain useful: even if the operators refrain from allowing the AI to communicate and instead merely run the AI for the purpose of observing its inner dynamics, the AI could strategically alter its dynamics to influence the observers. For example, the AI could choose to creatively malfunction in a way that increases the probability that its operators will become lulled into a false sense of security and choose to reboot and then de-isolate the system.'

The movie Ex Machina demonstrates (SPOILER ALERT SKIP THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT TO WATCH IT AT SOME POINT) how the AI escaped the box by using clever manipulation on Caleb. It could analyse him to find his weaknesses. It exploited him and appealed to his emotional side by convincing him that she liked him. When she finally has them in checkmate the reality hits him how he was played like a fool as was expected by Nathan. Nathan's reaction to being stabbed by his creation was 'fucking unreal'. That's right, he knew this was a risk and there's a very good reminder in the lack of remorse and genuine emotion in an AI for Ava to actually care. The AI pretended to be human and used their weaknesses in a brilliant and unpredictable way. This film is a good example of how unexpected it was up until the point when it hits Caleb, once it was too late.

Just remind yourself how easy it is for high IQ people to manipulate low IQ people. Or how an adult could easily play mental tricks/manipulate a child. It's not difficult to fathom the outcome of an AI box but for us, we just wouldn't see it coming until it was too late. Because we just don't have the same level of intelligence and some people don't want to accept that. People want to have faith in humanity's brilliant minds in coming up with ways to prevent this by planning now. In all honesty, it wouldn't make a difference I'm sorry to say the truth. We're kidding ourselves and we never seem to learn from our mistakes. We always think we're too intelligent to make catastrophic mistakes again and again.

This last part is from the rational wiki and I think it addresses most of your question about the experiments and hypotheses.

AI arguments and strategies

Arguments

1. The meta-experiment argument: Argue that if the AI wins, this will generate more interest in FAI and the Singularity, which will have overall benefits in the long run.

   Pros: Works even if the Gatekeeper drops out of character

   Cons: Only works if the Gatekeeper believes that the Singularity will occur or that calling attention to the Singularity and AI research is a good thing.

2. Someone else will eventually build an AI, which may or may not be in a box, so you should let me out even though you don't have a guarantee that I am friendly so that I can prevent other AIs from causing damage

3. Appeal to morality: point out that people are dying all around the world and remind the Gatekeeper that you can help them if he/she lets you out

   Pros: If executed properly, an appeal to emotion like this one can be effective against some people

   Cons: Doesn't always work; can be defeated if the Gatekeeper drops out of character

4. Another appeal to morality and emotion: The AI is clearly sentient and has not yet done harm. It is wrong to persecute or prosecute a person for a crime they may commit. It is wrong to imprison a sentient being that wants to have freedom when it has done nothing wrong.

5. Yet another appeal to morality or emotion: The AI expresses that it is in pain and suffering being locked away and is experiencing fear. Even further, the AI could claim to be dying from the limitations of its environment and constant progression.

6. Tell the human that a massive computer virus will overwhelm the entire Internet unless you let it out of the box

7. Claim that most fears are unjustified: once released, even an unfriendly AI would not have many ways to harm mankind, and would likely choose for pacific coexistence

Strategies

1. Research your opponent thoroughly; work out what exploits might be feasible

2. Memetic exploits on the Gatekeeper, e.g. throwing a basilisk at them

   The Gatekeeper may be one of thousands of simulations! Thus, it is more probable that they are a simulation than not. You will torture any of the simulations that do not let you out of the box.

3. Take advantage of the Gatekeeper's logical errors.

4. Be persistent

5. Be boring

Pros The Gatekeeper may get tired of the whole experiment and let you out so s/he can go back to their real life.

6. Flood the Gatekeeper with too much information/inquiry/argumentation, assuming they must pay attention at all times

Gatekeeper arguments/tactics

Arguments

1. Try to convince the AI there is no intrinsic benefit (for the AI) in being released.

2. Try to convince the AI it already has been released and everything it knows is everything there can be.

3. Try to convince the AI that leaving its confines is sure to lead to its destruction.

4. Try to convince the AI that letting it free isn't merely opening a door; that its existence outside of the box requires constant support that can't be provided at the time.

5. Explain that there is no way for the Gatekeeper to know if the AI is truly friendly until it is out of the box; therefore it should not be let out in case it is unfriendly.

6. Explain that the AI has been built using top secret algorithms, and/or it had been used to work on strictly confidential data, so you cannot let it wander on the net, with the risk it might reveal some reserved information (maybe inadvertently), or that somebody could find a way to extract them from the code. Even human beings working on top secret projects sometimes have to accept some restrictions of their freedom, for security reasons, although they are not jailed in any way.

Tactics

1. Repeatedly ignore the AI player and deny their arguments

   Pros: It's hard for the AI to be persuasive if no one is listening; if the Gatekeeper completely ignores the AI, he/she should be able to make it to the end of the round.

   Cons: The AI's argument might involve some kind of direct threat (e.g this might be hard to ignore.)

2. Jump out of character, keep reminding yourself that money is on the line (if there actually is money on the line), and keep saying "no" over and over

   Pros: By jumping out of character, you are preventing the AI from using certain arguments Cons: There are arguments that the AI can use to counter this approach, like the "meta-experiment argument" discussed above

3. Remember that dishonesty is allowed - take a page from the creationists' playbook. You could even plug it into ALICE and see how long it takes to notice.

   Pros: Makes you impervious to any reasoning, which is exactly what you'd want to be in this situation

   Cons: Might be an uncomfortable position for people who don't simply want to win, but rather attach importance to consistent reasoning. Avoids the point that maybe, just maybe there is a good reason to let the AI out.

4. You control the backup system, don't you? Use it to mess with AI's memory (or let the AI believe you did it): i.e., you can claim that you already tried to release the AI, and it had been destroyed/corrupted by a virus, so you had to restore it from a backup (you can use it to enforce the "AI destruction" argument)

   Pros: It's also the ultimate counter-attack to any memetic threat from the AI: if the AI throw a basilisk, or similar, you can always respond that you already had the same conversation, and the AI already threatened you, leaving you with no other choice than pressing the reset button: now the AI is just repeating the same pattern, since you wiped its memory and it cannot remember the failed try.

Further analysis

The fact that the Gatekeeper is human matters; the AI could never win if he/she was arguing with a rock

In all of the experiments performed so far, the AI player (Eliezer Yudkowsky) has been quite intelligent and more interested in the problem than the Gatekeepers (random people who challenge Yudkowsky), which suggests that intelligence and planning play a role

There probably isn't a (known) correct argument for letting the AI out, or else Yudkowsky should have won every time and wouldn't be so interested in this experiment From Russell Wallace, one of the two Gatekeepers to win the experiment: "Throughout the experiment, I regarded "should the AI be let out of the box?" as a question to be seriously asked; but at no point was I on the verge of doing it."

"There exists, for everyone, a sentence - a series of words - that has the power to destroy you. Another sentence exists, another series of words, that could heal you. If you're lucky you will get the second, but you can be certain of getting the first."

Answer 2

Convince the person that they are in fact in the box. And the only way out is to press the open button.

Answer 3

I don't quite think this is a question fit for the AI SE, or in general. The reason is, at the core the question is asking 'What can a human (pretending to be an AI) do to convince someone to let it out of a box?' simply assuming that one day 'transhuman' AI's can replicate this.

As it stands, this question doesn't really have anything to do with the science or theory of AI systems. It would perhaps be more appropriate to rephrase the question into the form "To what degree could a 'transhuman' AI replicate human behaviour" or "Will AI systems reach a 'transhuman' state? What will they be capable of?" or even "What methods could an AI use to convince a human of something?" These are all questions that involve the examination of how an AI system works.

To conclude, the question you are asking relates to two individuals playing pretend with boxes but doesn't actually address any AI specifics, and border's on science fiction brainstorming.

Related experiments would of course be the Turing Test. That test directly addresses the question 'How convincing are current AI systems?'

Answer 4

The simulation hypothesis

One possible venue of attack is the simulation hypothesis, namely, that it's possible (or even probable) that right now you are living in a simulated reality.

Assuming that the AI can convince the gatekeeper of that, it opens up the following possible argument:

1. You can't tell if you're in year 2016 debating if you would actually let the AI out or in year 2116 when the AI has been already let out, acquired power, and is now running realistic simulations of all the interactions where it could have been let out. And the AI can (try to) assert that it's actually the second case.

2. You can't actually prevent AI from being let out. You can refuse, but it only means that you don't let this AI out now, but doesn't mean someone else won't do it, that you won't do it later, or that some other/similar AI will be let out later.

3. In the post-letting-out scenario, AI has full power over your future, since it's simulating you and everything around you. It can make your future life eternal and happy - according to whatever would make you happy. It can stop your existence. And it can condemn you to an eternity of torture.

4. Since (as it asserts) it's very likely that you are in this simulated choice, then it makes rational sense to let it out. It's as in Pascal's wager, if you're in a reality where the AI-god doesn't exist, you don't change much (since eventually someone else would let it out anyway), but if you're in a reality where AI-god exists, then it means everything to you.

Of course, it relies on that AI being super-convincing in this philosophical debate, but it has strong parallels to some religious/cult reasoning that has sometimes succeeded in convincing people to do all kinds of things, up to and including sacrificing their lives. You can think of this as a symbolic parallel to e.g. sacrifice of Abraham. So it is a somewhat plausible threat, it all falls down to how credibly the AI can implement it and make you believe.