I’m a maths tutor in Sydney (not an ML researcher), but I've been approaching the alignment problem from a Game Theory perspective.
I derived a payoff matrix suggesting that if an ASI assigns any non-zero probability to the hypothesis that it is in a training simulation, "Defection" becomes a dominated strategy due to the infinite cost of pruning.
It’s effectively a Pascal’s Wager for Superintelligence.
I formalized the argument in the linked post, specifically focusing on the "Spy Problem" (why multipolar scenarios might actually increase safety via mutual paranoia).
I’d love to hear if the logic holds up to the scrutiny of this community.
mentalmaths•1mo ago
I’m a maths tutor in Sydney (not an ML researcher), but I've been approaching the alignment problem from a Game Theory perspective.
I derived a payoff matrix suggesting that if an ASI assigns any non-zero probability to the hypothesis that it is in a training simulation, "Defection" becomes a dominated strategy due to the infinite cost of pruning.
It’s effectively a Pascal’s Wager for Superintelligence.
I formalized the argument in the linked post, specifically focusing on the "Spy Problem" (why multipolar scenarios might actually increase safety via mutual paranoia).
I’d love to hear if the logic holds up to the scrutiny of this community.