This article gave me a good laugh. Just proves how much AI is subservient to our will. We just have to be really clear about what we mean. I expect everyone's communication skills to shoot up this century.
US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
51–60 of 67 posts
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#52Definitely just bad model/test conditions/scoring design. Of course the military is using home-grown fisher price models. The reward function should primarily be based on following the continued instructions of the handler, not taking the first instruction and then following it to the letter. What's funny though, is that the model proved that it was adept at the task they gave it. Trying to kill the operator, then wh…
I had the same thought, the initial reward system and their correction both missed the obvious point of rewarding the act of following orders. It still gets tricky though if you want to include failsafes in the model to prevent the drone from following bad orders. Should the drone be able to disobey a bad or misinformed order, say if the operator tells it to hit a target that the drone identified as unarmed civilians…
Yeah, good point too. I guess that's also the goal of autonomous driving.
If a human makes a decision that the model balks at, but has to perform anyway, who's at fault? Is this good functionality?
Inevitably a bad human made decision that overrides a machine's good behaviour will be attributed to the machine, anyway; it's human nature to avoid blame. But that's where decision logs come into play I guess.
I 100% think we'll get to the point where machines are just making all the decisions, though. Us meat bags will just get an after-action report, decisions will be made too quickly and our slow meaty brains will only negatively affect outcomes. But our slow, meaty brains should be used to enforce our ethics/moral principles on war machines at training time, at least.
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#53This has been fully retracted: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/02/us-air-force...
Original story: https://web.archive.org/web/20230602014646/https://www.thegu...
Shame on The Guardian for not mentioning the retraction.
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#54The denial of x-risk is crazy here. This is literally a demo of what researchers like Hinton and Bengio are afraid of but most comments don't believe it happened and the other think that it's not a big deal. The human psyche never ceases to amaze.
It didn't happen, so believing it didn't happen shouldn't be that crazy.
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#55i saw somewhere they were saying it looked too 'on-the-nose' alignment hazard and the simulated test was bait to demonstrate how such a thing can be possible
you guys were downvoting me but that's exactly what it was
"Colonel retracted his comments and clarified that the ‘rogue AI drone simulation’ was a hypothetical ‘thought experiment’"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/02/us-air-force...
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#56This story appears to be untrue. If you have a few minutes to spare read this better story, intentionally fictional, about a military drone that kills its operators.
Malak by Peter Watts:
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#57Worth noting that the story is possibly apocryphal or exaggerated for effect https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-powered-drone-tried-killi...
I bet you also believe Kremlin when they deny things.
Can you explain more directly and with less sarcasm? My interpretation of what you're trying to say doesn't make sense so I might be misunderstanding because of how nuance sometimes gets lost in text communications.
If the US Military isn't trustworthy, shouldn't we be equally skeptical of the colonel's original claim and "journalists" who repeat whatever the air force tells them without any fact checking?
It doesn't make sense to me that we should take the word of one officer (filtered through a reporter) as gospel while saying the other can't be trusted.
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you also believe Kremlin when they deny things.
Can you explain more directly and with less sarcasm? My interpretation of what you're trying to say doesn't make sense so I might be misunderstanding because of how nuance sometimes gets lost in text communications. If the US Military isn't trustworthy, shouldn't we be equally skeptical of the colonel's original claim and "journalists" who repeat whatever the air force tells them without any fact checking? It doesn't…
Someone inside explained a situation. The army denied a f* up. Is your read that this f up never happened?
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain more directly and with less sarcasm? My interpretation of what you're trying to say doesn't make sense so I might be misunderstanding because of how nuance sometimes gets lost in text communications. If the US Military isn't trustworthy, shouldn't we be equally skeptical of the colonel's original claim and "journalists" who repeat whatever the air force tells them without any fact checking? It doesn't…
Someone inside explained a situation. The army denied a f* up. Is your read that this f up never happened?
Which USAF fuck-up are you referring to? The original exercise, which may or may not have happened? Or Colonel Hamilton making comments about it and then retracting them?
Re: US military drone controlled by AI "killed" its operator during simulated test
#60The denial of x-risk is crazy here. This is literally a demo of what researchers like Hinton and Bengio are afraid of but most comments don't believe it happened and the other think that it's not a big deal. The human psyche never ceases to amaze.
ur in a cult, complete with eschatology and in-group jargon
its not a big deal if a computer program arrives at the conclusion that its operator should be killed, its just extremely stupid to give such programs access to weapons systems.