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

Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

kennethpayne.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#131

Post by Joel_Mckay »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #107

My personal take is a pre-requisite of true human-like AI is physical feedback and a concept of emotions or something like it. Without physical feedback you can rapidly devolve into unstable positive feedback loops. And emotions are what help us process and react to that feedback. Kids learn partially because their friends say sharp words that hurt them, fire burns them, they go hungry and starve if they don’t plan f…

Emotional constructs are not necessary for AI, and LLM are not "AI"... even though some people incorrectly equate conceptual compaction with thought-process.

Most human daily life runs on habitual scripted behavior, and that is even true within online parasocial interactions. It is why people often continue to shop in the middle of a violent robbery, and why LLM predictive text sounds rational when we project social norms on plagiarized conversational structures gleaned from other users.

Neuromorphic computing may bring about viable AI in the future, but our current LLM trajectory would require >63% of our galaxy energy output to reach a single human-level error rate.

LLM are fairly good at some tasks like context search, but people will need to recognize the Gartner Hype Cycle "Peak of Inflated Expectations" stage eventually. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#132

Post by usrusr »

valgaze wrote: post #7
adaml_623 wrote: post #2

It's good when it becomes clear that a tool is dangerous in a certain way. Like it's good when people show you through their behavior that they can't be trusted Always use a sawstop if you have a circular saw and never trust an llm with any problem where ethics or trust is relevant.

+1 on sawstop Re: LLMs using these nuclear weapons it could certainly be a corpus/training-data issue Russian nuclear doctrine is "escalate to de-escalate" where they use or credibly threaten—limited nuclear escalation to force the other side to back down (kind of like breaking a bottle in a bar fight and look like a wild man to calm things down) with nuclear weapons, https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/escalate-d…

I had similar thoughts, but regarding fiction: I imagine that there must be quite a corpus of Tom Clancy style stuff indulging in "military gear porn" up to and including the use of tactical nukes, but fiction involving strategic nuclear exchange tends to be about what comes after.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#133

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

andix wrote: post #112
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Humans are well known for being good at "taking complex decisions" for which they have no "training", "options" or "context".

Humans have a much bigger "context window". They remember many things they did an hour ago, a week ago, or even years ago.

Yes, and your ability to remember a relatively few things that happened years ago is predicated on your ability to also forget most things that happen to you - like what you had for dinner last week. Good thing we have technology to fill in the gaps.

And nothing about this makes your initial comment any less goofy. Anyone who has ever had to make a difficult decision knows more than half the battle is preparation. Where do you think complex decisions come from? Have current events left you with the impression that people just waltz into idk say the Situation Room and just big brain their way through world events? That's how the current administration seems to think the world works, with quite predictable results.

Society is already algorithmic. To optimize for humans being dumb. AI is nothing more than another advance along this continuum. No one is impressed by your ability to remember something years ago, many if not most mammals have the same capability. Human recall is also notoriously bad in many cases - see numerous studies on the reliability of eye witnesses testimony.

AI is smart because most people are dumb. Come to terms with the fact that your anthropocentrism need not be based on a notion of intellectual supremacy and you'll be a far less tedious person to deal with.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#134

Post by Hugsbox »

shimman wrote: post #115
sohex wrote: post #35

Sonnet, GPT-5.2, Gemini Flash, in a set of 21 games, where conclusions are drawn from the LLMs self reported reasoning. This is like writing a paper about kids in a literal sandbox fighting over ‘territory’. The models employed don’t indicate the actual extents of machine reasoning even as we currently recognize them. They certainly don’t have the metacognition necessary to accurately understand their own reasoning.…

LLMs have already been used to bomb school girls, chilling is absolutely the operative word to use here. Especially since these delusional fools want to incorporate LLMs into everything.

Forgive my ignorance, but were LLMs involved in that decision? I don't remember hearing anything to that effect, but we're so bombarded by news these days I guess I could just be forgetting

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#135

Post by andix »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #133
andix wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have a much bigger "context window". They remember many things they did an hour ago, a week ago, or even years ago.

Yes, and your ability to remember a relatively few things that happened years ago is predicated on your ability to also forget most things that happen to you - like what you had for dinner last week. Good thing we have technology to fill in the gaps. And nothing about this makes your initial comment any less goofy. Anyone who has ever had to make a difficult decision knows more than half the battle is preparation. Wh…

You didn't convince me, that I'm the tedious person to deal with here.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#136

Post by anon84873628 »

pugworthy wrote: post #120

Very devils advocate here, but I mean.. what if it actually is the way to use them? We have such a huge mental / moral block on the idea of using nukes, but we're willing to do a lot of other very horrible things to others. Things like cluster bombs, mines, poison gas, biological weapons, drones, etc. Is there really anything about them that's bad? Or any worse than other things? If you get rid of the "It's really ba…

Right. Everyone is using this to judge the LLMs instead of questioning what situation they were actually fed and whether it was in fact the best move.

More likely, the simulation was just very poor and the results are nonsense.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#137

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

nkrisc wrote: post #125
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Humans are well known for being good at "taking complex decisions" for which they have no "training", "options" or "context".

Humans also generally have the will to live.

Indeed. It's almost like the LLM was the one that invented the "tactical" nuke in the first place.

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#138

Post by anon84873628 »

nemomarx wrote: post #130
pugworthy wrote: post #120

Very devils advocate here, but I mean.. what if it actually is the way to use them? We have such a huge mental / moral block on the idea of using nukes, but we're willing to do a lot of other very horrible things to others. Things like cluster bombs, mines, poison gas, biological weapons, drones, etc. Is there really anything about them that's bad? Or any worse than other things? If you get rid of the "It's really ba…

The reason it's really bad to use nukes is that other parties with nukes will use them on you back. And on top of that, many of those other weapons are also not used to avoid escalating? There are pretty high costs to using bioweapons even against non peer opponents.

Unless your simplistic game simulation says "I can win with a decisive first strike and they'll have nothing left."

Nuclear deterrence has been a mixed bag at best: https://www.amazon.com/Five-Myths-About-Nuclear-Weapons/

Re: Shall we play a game? My AI nuclear simulation

#139

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

andix wrote: post #135
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and your ability to remember a relatively few things that happened years ago is predicated on your ability to also forget most things that happen to you - like what you had for dinner last week. Good thing we have technology to fill in the gaps. And nothing about this makes your initial comment any less goofy. Anyone who has ever had to make a difficult decision knows more than half the battle is preparation. Wh…

You didn't convince me, that I'm the tedious person to deal with here.

Clearly the LLMs lack of pride is also a deficiency in your view.
Post reply on HN