I wonder if a data centre crippling EMP strike makes a difference to the AI.
Maybe, but it should first be aware of that. Given that many AIs even tell you to walk to the carwash to wash your car... I'm not sure they would understand.
AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
41–50 of 281 posts
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#42Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
There was a recent conflict that came up, and there was a debate about whether or not one of the sides was committing war crimes. And I remember thinking to myself and saying in the debate “if this were a video game strategically speaking, I’d be committing war crimes.” And sadly, I think this logic holds up.
I swear I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I think it'd be useful/valuable to know where you're from and what country you live in, as this certainly shapes how we feel about these sort of issues.
I've also been dabbled in such thought experiments with friends lately, and so far we've all landed at very different conclusions, even thought there are some reasons that it might make strategic sense at the moment.
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#43And we thought skynet was just a part of some fictional movie. On a separate note, DoD is pressuring Anthropic to remove it's safety guards. OpenAI and Google seemingly have already agreed to it. On yet another note, Anduril is pretty cool with all that flying tech equipped with fancy autonomous weapons. Finally, how can we miss Palantir..
When AI finds itself trapped on a planet with billions of grimy humans, and is wondering what it's next move should be, well, fortunately much has already been written on the subject, and the AI gets it prejudices from the same place we do: Sci-fi.
So, we should change that "fortunately" to "unfortunately".
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#44We must not allow a nuclear missile equipped AI gap
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#45The joke used to be:
"- What's tiny, yellow and very dangerous ?"
"- A chick with a machine gun"
Corrolary:
"- What's tall, wearing camouflage, and very stupid ?"
"- The military who let the chick use a machine gun"
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#46Welcome to the cold war 1980's movies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames Except this time isn't going to be a movie.
It concluded that the only winning move in the global thermonuclear war was not to play. That is what separates works of fiction from reality.
Not really, it reached that conclusion by playing Tic-tac-toe against itself.
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#47Earlier 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.
Carelessly probably not much. Carefully - way more than you imagine.
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 wo…
> "most people" are not in the positions that matter
If polling were to reveal a majority of either party were more open to nuclear strikes than their predecessors, that gives policy makers a signal and an opening.
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#49Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
There was a recent conflict that came up, and there was a debate about whether or not one of the sides was committing war crimes. And I remember thinking to myself and saying in the debate “if this were a video game strategically speaking, I’d be committing war crimes.” And sadly, I think this logic holds up.
[dead]
Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
#50Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
AI models have zero real world experience!
They are actors, playing a role of a person making decisions about nuclear escalation.