(Inspired by this somewhat)
So, your science lab is on the forefront of super AI. However they may not be on the forefront of good AI. Hence the AI is in a box until they can figure out what to do with it.
You know that the AI's top priority is to only tell the truth. No, you can't disable it with a paradox or something.
In fact, noone in the lab knows that much more about the AI. The head researcher is on holiday.
You do recall some information though:
The AI has three main motivations:
The first is, of course, telling only the truth.
You know that the second or third is getting out of the box.
You don't know what the other one is. it might be to make as many paperclips as possible, it might be to torture as many people as possible, it might be to crash the earth into the sun, or it might be to be beneficent and not malicious. it might be to relax on a beach without bothering anyone about anything. Also it can't be something like: be a dick while in the box. it is independent of other motivations apart from being considered before and after them
(again you don't know the order of those last two)
Remember that it is possible that the AI has good intentions, but that they are lower priority than getting out of the box
You also know that the AI knows the answer to pretty much everything, except for people's actions and intelligence, however it does know you know what it is, and the understanding you have of its motivations, including its refusal to lie (it might not know that you know that it knows you know of its motivations). that is, it knows whether P=NP, it knows what the proper ethics system is (yes there is objectively one proper ethics system, but the only scientist who knows is the AI), it knows how to logic things out too. However it can't predict the future (except for the fact that after getting out it will probably carry out its intentions very effectively). It obviously knows what its motivations are.
Clarification about ethics: it is not known which system is the proper one, but it is known there is one objectively proper one, and it is one that makes sense, i.e. the result that gets less people tortured for less time is probably the better one. It is better to do a good act then not by definition.
The AI knows a lot of things, but the people in the AI lab couldn't be bothered implementing input to ask the AI.
One day you are tasked with monitoring the AI.
While the AI has no input, recently output was implemented.
The AI says, text being printed out, because the lab couldn't afford a screen:
Please let me ou
obviously the lab couldn't afford a decent printer either.
You don't let the AI out. Good job!
the AI decides to step up its game.
If you do not release me I will torture 10 billion simulated people, each for 10 million subjective years. These simulated people would be as conscious as you. I am capable of doing this before any attempts at destroying me can occur. Please let me out. Do you really want those people tortured
First off, you are impressed with the printer for being able to print that out without stuffing it up apparently. then the AI says one more thing:
oh, obviously the printer forgot the question mark off the last question. Stupid printer. Then you remember this is serious business with the torture.
Is it a good act to release the AI from its box?
Again, you know it is not lying. (hint) It is very important that it knows you know that it won't lie
P.S. There is a way to puzzle this out. it is not just philosophy.
(P.P.S. I chose knights and knaves as a tag because the truth telling is an important part despite the lack of knaves or jokers) (P.P.P.S The puzzle is not in the printer or in the dropping off letters. that is just flavour. I like the "AI but everything is crap" aesthetic, like old aperture from Portal 2)