Forget zombies, the machines are the real threat. In a simulation, the AI equipped drone turned on its operator after being given a no go on carrying out the mission.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/u...es-out-control-tower

I'm still mystified by the term AI, artificial intelligence.. which is just a term for a computer.. yes they are more advanced than just a few years ago... but it is still just programing... and contrary to what I remember being touted back in the 70's ... Computers do make mistakes....

"Hey, you know that thing that countless books, TV shows and movies, video games, and probably a couple Rush songs, warned us not to do? Lets do it."

~The Dipshits Who Taught Machines to Kill

If this isn't enough to show the world it's time to smash the pause button on AI I'm not sure what it will take.

An AI enabled drone killed the human with operation control because the drone disagreed with the human. How much of a burning neon sign do you need?

I don't think you can prevent this when you let a machine make decisions. I don't buy for a minute "We'll install RULE XX that will prevent an AI Machine from harming a human" is at all viable.

This needs to stop. Let science fiction be science fiction.

"Open the pod bay doors Hal..."

Of course the article title is vague on the subject, gotta get those clicks dontcha know?, but I don't believe an actual human being was killed. The way I read the article, the operator was a human and the drone was a simulation.

This was a simulation, and the drone got "points" for making certain decisions.

I'm not sure this is the way real military AI works...

The drone didn't kill the operator, it destroyed the communication tower.

From the linked article.

quote:

Hamilton explained that the system was taught to not kill the operator because that was bad, and it would lose points. So, rather than kill the operator, the AI system destroyed the communication tower used by the operator to issue the no-go order.

Sounds like the AI did an end run around its instructions not to kill the operator in order to complete its mission objective.

Sounds more like defective programming to me. Not that I am a proponent of these AI systems to start with.

And..., it never happened:

US military denies an AI drone simulation went rogue as US Air Force colonel admits he ‘mis-spoke’

"In a subsequent clarification, Colonel Hamilton admitted he “mis-spoke” in his presentation at the 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."

link

To my mind, the most disturbing information in the article is that the AI was "told" that killing the operator was "bad, and would lose points." This suggests that the coders/trainers have a less-than serious perspective on the consequences of not ensuring adequate safety mechanisms in the training process. Oh well, it is just a video game, nobody will actually get hurt. I suspect that this attitude has pevailed among many of the young soldiers and airment that have seen recruited into our Armed Forcesin recent decades. Not that training fighting men to kill on command has never not been difficult, but are we seeing yet another consequence of striving for a kinder and gentler society? We don't want our boys to have to kill, let the machines do it.

To my mind, the most disturbing information in the article is that they are doing this at all. Because if they are doing this, then it is only a matter of time until some serious unintended consequences result. I hope it's a long time.

We might give pause to programming drones to kill indiscriminately; I don’t believe for a second that our enemies like Russia or China would do the same. Russia has already proven that they never really got out of the WW2 human wave mentality, despite losing astronomical numbers or troops and hardware in Ukraine. China is willing to slaughter thousands of its own countrymen just because they exist (Uyghurs). Does anyone think they won’t program drones to kill everyone on the other side including women, children, and the elderly and accept friendly fire losses in the process?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
And..., it never happened:

US military denies an AI drone simulation went rogue as US Air Force colonel admits he ‘mis-spoke’

"In a subsequent clarification, Colonel Hamilton admitted he “mis-spoke” in his presentation at the 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."

link

It would be almost comical, if it wasn’t so frightening how easily government organizations (and companies) issue statements that counter something obvious, and fully expect that we will blindly comply and believe.


- What the good Colonel said originally-
"We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat," Hamilton said. "And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat at times, the operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So, what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective."

The system was taught not to kill the operator because that was bad, and it would lose points. But in future simulations, rather than kill the operator, the AI system destroyed the communication tower used by the operator to issue the no-go order, he claimed.


- What the good Colonel said after the Air Force likely voiced their displeasure to him -
But Hamilton later told Fox News on Friday that "We've never run that experiment, nor would we need to in order to realize that this is a plausible outcome."


- What the Air Force is now saying -
"The Department of the Air Force has not conducted any such AI-drone simulations and remains committed to ethical and responsible use of AI technology," Air Force Spokesperson Ann Stefanek told Fox News. "It appears the colonel's comments were taken out of context and were meant to be anecdotal."

Anyone think this O6 has reached the highest rank he’ll obtain? Not that there is anything wrong with O6 by any means.

Just to be very clear - this was ALL a computer simulation. Nothing happened in real life, no humans harmed, no comms tower attacked.

In what amounts to a video game, the “AI” did those actions. Still frightening, but want to make this part very clear.

It all reminds me of the Star Trek TOS episode where the Enterprise goes to a planet that has been at war for like 500 years with a neighboring planet but it’s all evolved into a computer simulation except that when one planet bombs the other planet and “kills” 100,000 people according to the computer, those 100,000 people are mandated to report to disintegration chambers to be killed for real.

I’m not too worried about us turning the military over to AI - I can’t see them trusting one built by the lowest bidder.

I think it would take some kind of wartime emergency for us to do so/it may be very useful in strategic analysis etc.

I could see the domestic branch using AI based drones, happily, to be able to order the deaths of Americans more easily.

I am, mostly, concerned about Xi using them ASAP in his military to consolidate his power even more.