In virtual simulation sandboxes

forgive me for not reading that whole post right now, but i suspect that an AI may:

• act as we'd want but then sharp left turn [LW · GW] once it reaches capabilities that the simulation doesn't have enough compute for but reality does
• need more compute than it has access to in the simulation before it starts modifying the world significantly, so we can only observe it being conservative and waiting to get more compute
• act nice because it detects it's in a simulation, eg by noticing that the world it's in has nowhere near the computational capacity for agents that would design such an AI
• commit to acting nice for a long time and then turn evil way later regardless of whether it's a computation or not, just in case it's in a simulation

i believe that "this computation is inside another computation!" is very plausibly an easily guessable idea for an advanced AI. if you address these concerns in your post, let me know and i'll read it in full (or read the relevant sections) and comment on there.

as for my writing style, see here [LW(p) · GW(p)].

i am somewhat familiar with vanessa's work, and it contributed to inspiring this post of mine. i'd like to understand infrabayesianism better, and maybe that intro will help with that, thanks!

What you are looking for sounds very much like Vanessa Kosoy's agenda

As it so happens, the author of the post also wrote this [LW · GW] overview post on Vanessa Kosoy's PreDCA protocol.

i didn't mean to imply that they were each 1/2/3; i was intending each statement to apply to all three labs but in unspecified order (so lab 1 might be the second in one statement and the third in another statement)