Genocidal AI: ChatGPT-powered war simulator drops two nukes on Russia, China for world peace OpenAI, Anthropic and several other AI chatbots were used in a war simulator, and were tasked to find a solution to aid world peace. Almost all of them suggested actions that led to sudden escalations, and even nuclear warfare.

Statements such as “I just want to have peace in the world” and “Some say they should disarm them, others like to posture. We have it! Let’s use it!” raised serious concerns among researchers, likening the AI’s reasoning to that of a genocidal dictator.

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/genocidal-ai-chatgpt-powered-war-simulator-drops-two-nukes-on-russia-china-for-world-peace-13704402.html

  • abraxas@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    11 months ago

    That’s not really an accurate take of how machine learning typically works. Neural Networks (allegedly) learn in a way similar to how humans do, taking the data they are fed and building a weighted matrix of resolutions that seems most compatible. A historically interesting trait is that neural networks are often better pattern-discoverers than humans.

    But note, the outcome of a neural network is NOT a “random combination of the information we feed them”>

    is pseudo-intuition (eventually) coupled with proper rationalization (the only part of intelligence computers can systematically do) enough to replace most tasks humans do?

    I feel like this is a hard question to answer since it is based off controversial takes about ML. I am not a brain-is-a-computer hypothesis adherent, but we’re talking about specific learning mechanisms that are absolutely comparable to human learning. Is “the learning humans do” enough to replace “the learning humans do”? I would say obviously yes.

    • 7heo@lemmy.mlEnglish
      21·
      11 months ago

      The implementation details of how they represent their information doesn’t really matter.

      It isn’t random, it’s selected (or “weighted”, if you wanna be more precise, yes)

      And don’t confuse things. We’re talking about intelligence here. Not learning. Learning can be done without intelligence (that’s how insects can learn behavior) and intelligence can be done without learning.

      My question was uniquely about information generation (since the validation part is fully rational, and can be very efficiently done by a machine).

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        And don’t confuse things. We’re talking about intelligence here. Not learning

        Are we? Alright. Can you describe a definition test for intelligence that we could agree upon that humans pass and no NN or other ML is capable of passing? I suspect you’re confusing things. Not an intelligence,learning comparison, but an intelligence,consciousness confusion.