3 ms·

a quote in the articl says: “We trained the system–‘Hey don’t kill the operator–that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doin

a quote in the articl says: “We trained the system–‘Hey don’t kill the operator–that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.” I don't think they would be talking about points if someone lost their lives. It's pure clickbait, should be removed.

lucubratory 3y ago
It says very clearly "in USAF simulated test". I am not understanding how multiple people misread this.
- chaps 3y ago
  A lot of assumptions are lost when "accidental explosions" is a genuine factor. It doesn't help that the article has quotes like, "It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective". Try reading it as "AI-controlled Drone shoots missile at human target despite instructions to only simulate missile the launch." There are easy ways to clarify the article but they clearly didn't try. "Rogue AI Destroys Normally-manned Control Tower in USAF Simulated Test"
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    Those "explosions" only happened in a USAF Simulated Test! There was no physical damage to the real world that occurred in this test. They are talking about events that happened within a military simulation, likely a variant of the sort of simulations that pilots use for training before they can fly a plane. This was completely clear because the headline ends with "in USAF Simulated Test". Where is the confusion? They stated that these events occurred in a simulated test environment.
    - chaps 3y ago
      "Simulated" doesn't explicitly mean "in a computer" by default. A "simulated test environment" can also mean "a robot in a physical field simulating a war". The choice of language is deeply misleading. Hell, the wikipedia on "Military Simulation" [1] is very clear that there's a very broad gradient under the section "The simulation spectrum", saying: The term military simulation can cover a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from full-scale field-exercises,[2] to abstract computerized models that can proceed with little or no human involvement—such as the RAND Strategy Assessment Center (RSAC). The first example described is literally in physical space, where computers wouldn't even necessarily be involved! Military exercises focus on the simulation of real, full-scale military operations in controlled hostile conditions in attempts to reproduce war time decisions and activities for training purposes or to analyze the outcome of possible war time decisions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_exercise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_exercise
- potsandpans 3y ago
  "kills human operator in simulated test" is grammatically constructed to enforce ambiguity and imply or insinuate that an actual death happened. the neutral way to say this is something like, "drone simulated killing a human operator in test", which removes ambiguity of whether the killing happened independently from the simulation, or within it. you may not have read it that way, but plenty of people did. it's safe to assume that this was done intentionally. the title should be changed.
- quantified 3y ago
  If the simulation actual killed the operator, that would be metal. And worth a headline.

lucubratory 3y ago

It says very clearly "in USAF simulated test". I am not understanding how multiple people misread this.

chaps 3y ago
A lot of assumptions are lost when "accidental explosions" is a genuine factor. It doesn't help that the article has quotes like, "It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective". Try reading it as "AI-controlled Drone shoots missile at human target despite instructions to only simulate missile the launch." There are easy ways to clarify the article but they clearly didn't try. "Rogue AI Destroys Normally-manned Control Tower in USAF Simulated Test"
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Those "explosions" only happened in a USAF Simulated Test! There was no physical damage to the real world that occurred in this test. They are talking about events that happened within a military simulation, likely a variant of the sort of simulations that pilots use for training before they can fly a plane. This was completely clear because the headline ends with "in USAF Simulated Test". Where is the confusion? They stated that these events occurred in a simulated test environment.
  - chaps 3y ago
    "Simulated" doesn't explicitly mean "in a computer" by default. A "simulated test environment" can also mean "a robot in a physical field simulating a war". The choice of language is deeply misleading. Hell, the wikipedia on "Military Simulation" [1] is very clear that there's a very broad gradient under the section "The simulation spectrum", saying: The term military simulation can cover a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from full-scale field-exercises,[2] to abstract computerized models that can proceed with little or no human involvement—such as the RAND Strategy Assessment Center (RSAC). The first example described is literally in physical space, where computers wouldn't even necessarily be involved! Military exercises focus on the simulation of real, full-scale military operations in controlled hostile conditions in attempts to reproduce war time decisions and activities for training purposes or to analyze the outcome of possible war time decisions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_exercise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_exercise
potsandpans 3y ago
"kills human operator in simulated test" is grammatically constructed to enforce ambiguity and imply or insinuate that an actual death happened. the neutral way to say this is something like, "drone simulated killing a human operator in test", which removes ambiguity of whether the killing happened independently from the simulation, or within it. you may not have read it that way, but plenty of people did. it's safe to assume that this was done intentionally. the title should be changed.
quantified 3y ago
If the simulation actual killed the operator, that would be metal. And worth a headline.