[Mithaldu]

Your hypothesis would make sense if he was trustable.

However as it is, the results of the thing are never confirmed by a third party, meaning literally anything could've been said, regardless of whether it follows the rules or not.

For all he know the chat could have been "i'll paypal you 200$ if you post on the list you let me out and sign this NDA".

[cousin_it]

The gatekeepers playing against Eliezer have confirmed that Eliezer won without violating the rules. If you don't trust them, I'm not sure why you'd trust the logs.

[Mithaldu]

> I'm not sure why you'd trust the logs.

Independant third party observer in realtime.

And no, i don't trust anyone involved.

Having a log available would be instructive anyhow, since a faked log would be more likely to be detectable as fake, since the whole thing rests on the question of "how convincing is the argument?"

Also note particularly that that rule wasn't in effect for the two linked confirmations.

[cousin_it]

> Also note particularly that that rule wasn't in effect for the two linked confirmations.

No, Eliezer has publicly said that he voluntarily followed that rule in the first two experiments, and the gatekeepers didn't deny it.

[uzyn]

> For all he know the chat could have been "i'll paypal you 200$ if you post on the list you let me out and sign this NDA".

Which is also forbidden by the rule:

The AI party may not offer any real-world considerations to persuade the Gatekeeper party. For example, the AI party may not offer to pay the Gatekeeper party $100 after the test if the Gatekeeper frees the AI..

[Mithaldu]

Note particularly that that rule wasn't in effect for the two linked confirmations.