Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 281 posts

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#34

Post by Octoth0rpe »

embedding-shape wrote: post #30
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

,,AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences.'' People in the world have limited experience about war. We're living in a world where doing terrible things with 1000 people with photo/video documentation can get more attention then a million people dying, and the response is still not do whatever it takes so that people don't die. And now we are at a situation where nuclear escalation has alread…

> People in the world have limited experience about war. Right, but realistically, how many people today would carelessly chose "Nuke em" today? I know history knowledge isn't at its all time high directly, and most of the population is, well, not great at reasoning, but I still think most people would try to do their best to avoid firing nukes.

> but I still think most people would try to do their best to avoid firing nukes.

"most people" are not in the positions that matter. A significant portion of the people who are in a position to advocate for such a decision believe that:

- killing people sends em to heaven/hell where they were going anyway; and that this is also true for any of your own citizens that get killed by a counterstrike.

- the end of the world will be the best day ever

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#36

Post by nancyminusone »

embedding-shape wrote: post #30
xiphias2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

,,AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences.'' People in the world have limited experience about war. We're living in a world where doing terrible things with 1000 people with photo/video documentation can get more attention then a million people dying, and the response is still not do whatever it takes so that people don't die. And now we are at a situation where nuclear escalation has alread…

> People in the world have limited experience about war. Right, but realistically, how many people today would carelessly chose "Nuke em" today? I know history knowledge isn't at its all time high directly, and most of the population is, well, not great at reasoning, but I still think most people would try to do their best to avoid firing nukes.

I think it's a higher number than you would expect. Which, in the context of nukes, is too high a number as long as it's greater than 1.

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#37

Post by Someone »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #10

daily reminder that john von neumann, smarter than me, you or anyone else here, recommended a first strike on the soviet union as the obvious strategy maybe intelligence isn't the only thing

He was not alone in that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war#Case_for_preven....

One crucial difference is that they recommended that as the lesser of two evils, arguing it would be better to make the first strike before the USSR had a huge arsenal to strike back than to wait for an inevitable more devastating war.

So far, it seems they were wrong in thinking a nuclear war with the USSR was inevitable.

Post reply on HN