this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
34 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34441 readers
211 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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."

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] saba@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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"

[–] cavemeat@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i remember they made a movie about this back in the 80s

[–] KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I'll have what she's having."

[–] PMunch@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] da_peda@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.”

[–] sup@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Holy shit...

[–] locnar1701@lemmy.initq.net 2 points 1 year ago

This is what can happen if you put too much weight on the mission completion on the objective function.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] dl007@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago