3 ms·

>If the operator was working from a ground station, it could target that ground station first to kill the operator and then go on to kill SAMs. This doesn't ma

by Imnimo 3y ago

>If the operator was working from a ground station, it could target that ground station first to kill the operator and then go on to kill SAMs. This doesn't make sense. The operator has to approve strikes ("with the final go/no go given by the human") - how can the agent target the ground station without approval? And if it can do that, why can't it also just kill SAMs without approval?

lucubratory 3y ago
If the plane can't launch a strike without an affirmative approval from a human, then it would not have learned to kill its human operator in order to be able to strike SAMs without interference. Therefore "with the final go/no go given by the human" cannot be correct as you're interpreting it (and as I agree it probably should be interpreted). I think it's worth remembering that these are selected comments from a talk at an event about a simulated test. We don't know what the parameters of the test are and the full report on it would probably be classified, we don't have the full talk, and humans don't always speak precisely. About all we know is that the USAF research division ran simulations of AIs in control of F-16s, and in those simulations the AI killed their operators and after that problem was partially mitigated it instead destroyed their operator's means of controlling them. We also know that at least one person within the US military (Col Hamilton) views this as a problem and at least seems to be taking it seriously, although not as seriously as I would like.