The Air Force’s Chief of AI Test and Operations said “it killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”
I think you posted this before the article was updated:
“Col Hamilton admits he ‘mis-spoke’ in his presentation at the FCAS Summit and the ‘rogue AI drone simulation’ was a hypothetical “thought experiment” from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation,” the Royal Aeronautical Society, the organization where Hamilton talked about the simulated test, told Motherboard in an email.
"We’ve never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realise that this is a plausible outcome,” Col. Tucker “Cinco” Hamilton, the USAF’s Chief of AI Test and Operations, said in a quote included in the Royal Aeronautical Society’s statement. “Despite this being a hypothetical example, this illustrates the real-world challenges posed by AI-powered capability and is why the Air Force is committed to the ethical development of AI”
Yup, I saw on mastodon that it was entirely made-up, shows how easy people just believe scary stories about AI, although I can understand why.
i remember they made a movie about this back in the 80s
“I’ll have what she’s having.”
Worst romcom ever.
Interesting to see, you’d think this would be the #1 safeguard you add. It’s even the main trope of AI stories like the paperclip machine that if a poorly incentivised AI goes wild it would do stuff like this.
From the article:
He continued to elaborate, saying, “We trained the system–‘Hey don’t kill the operator–that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”
Holy shit…
deleted by creator
This is what can happen if you put too much weight on the mission completion on the objective function.
When life imitates art https://rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Malak.pdf
😕
