
Eliezer Yudkowsky: That Alien Message - rms
http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/
======
rfreytag
The AI-Boxing Experiment remains one of the most interesting things I have
ever read: <http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox>

In the "Alien Message" Eliezer Yudkowsky has flipped around the AI-boxing
question so that now we're the AI in the box. Perhaps the results are more
palatable that way.

If you really want to stretch your mind dig around the archives of:
<http://www.sl4.org/>

~~~
kwamenum86
re: the AI-Boxing experiment, Arguably a human can take over a human mind:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming>

~~~
Luc
_Arguably_ homeopathy can cure the common cold. The balance of evidence seems
to be on the side of the skeptics...

------
Eliezer
I'm flattered by the attention this essay still gets! I just wish I understood
better _why_ some of my writing is so much more appealing than other writing.
Things I _designed_ to be viral, like <http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues>,
don't keep getting HN'ed and reddited like this does. Not knowing what you did
right is almost as frustrating as not knowing what you did wrong.

(Okay, so I'm complaining to the choir here.)

~~~
lisper
I can tell you exactly why "That Alien Message" gets more attention: because
it's a _story_ , and a cracklin' good one. Human brains are hard-wired to be
attracted to good stories. This is why mythology is so powerful.

BTW, there is a pretty well worked out theory of what makes a good story.
Geeks tend to pooh-pooh this theory because it's associated with the "squishy"
field of stage and screen drama. IMHO this is a serious mistake. The world
today really needs a better mythology. Those in its current inventory are
getting obsolete. Some of them are becoming actively harmful. Coming up with a
good mythology is not so easy. The last person I know of who did a notable job
was L. Ron Hubbard (at least, he's the last one who did it _intentionally_ ).
Imagine how much better off the world would be if Hubbard hadn't been a
psychopath. I hope some people reading this might start devoting a little time
to thinking about this problem.

~~~
davi
_there is a pretty well worked out theory of what makes a good story_

links please

~~~
lisper
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_theory>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle)>

[http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-Structure-
Principles-S...](http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-Structure-Principles-
Screenwriting/dp/0060391685)

~~~
lisper
BTW, the theory is pretty easy to summarize. At the risk of oversimplifying,
the essential elements of a good story are:

1\. A _protagonist_ , who is a sympathetic character with a _goal_. In
Eliezer's story the protagonist is not a single character, but all of
humanity. Their goal is to understand the universe.

2\. An _antagonist_ , who places _obstacles_ in the path of the protagonist to
prevent him (or her or them) from achieving the goal. In Eliezer's story, the
antagonist is whoever is causing the stars to blink.

3\. A structure that includes (more or less) the following elements in order:

a) An _introduction_ that establishes the characters and the basic ground
rules of the world they live in

b) An _inciting incident_ that launches the protagonist on a _journey_. In
Eliezer's story this is the stars starting to blink.

c) The journey itself, which ultimately leads to some kind of _catastrophe_
from which no escape seems possible.

d) A _resolution_ , which results in the protagonist being forever changed in
some way. It may or may not include the actual achievement of the
protagonist's goal. It may, for example, be the protagonist realizing that
they chose the wrong goal. Think "Wizard of Oz".

Of course, there's a lot more to say than just that, but those are the
fundamentals.

~~~
hegemonicon
See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth>

------
lispmeister
Way back in 2000 at the Foresight Associates conference, Eliezer stood his
ground against Marvin Minsky calling his ideas "rubbish". I was impressed by
how Eliezer answered each objection with deep insights into the nature of AI.

~~~
zephjc
Minksy is no dummy, but his ideas about AI and cognition are dated (though I
admit it's been a while since I've read anything he's had to say on the
subject).

------
DanielBMarkham
This is good, but I'd like to point out that it's at least the third time this
same article has appeared on HN.

I wasn't sure if I should comment about that or not. I know lots of folks
haven't seen it, so thanks for posting, but for those of us who have already
clicked twice, it wasn't as enjoyable the third time around as it was the
first.

~~~
megaduck
Normally I'm opposed to dupes, but every once in a while there's something
that _everybody_ should see.

This probably falls into that category, if you couple it with the AI-Boxing
experiment (previously mentioned in this thread). The results of that
experiment are so profound and disturbing that everybody should have some
exposure.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I actually don't have a problem with dupes. I just wish there was some way for
me to know that I've already read it. Most times I don't remember from the
title alone.

~~~
megaduck
Ah, understood. Sorry if I misread you.

I totally agree it would be nice to be able to flag previously-read articles,
or manage dupes in some other elegant way. It seems like a non-trivial
problem, though.

------
danbmil99
Jeez, this guy is paranoid.

~~~
RevRal
What is it that you think he's paranoid about?

Have you read anything else he's written? If not, you should. It's good stuff.

~~~
rbanffy
I second RevRal. His articles are some of the most interesting ones I have
read in a very long time.

