Replying to @⁨Sam_Bass@lemmy.world⁩

AI didn’t decide anything. The humans failed to properly define the rules, and their translation model took the path most likely to succeed.

If it had been told not to use human created bots to win, it would probably have reverse engineered the game, found an exploit, and leveraged that instead. Because using the human interface to play/win the game is not the most efficient or dependable or easy to figure out method.

Replying to @⁨schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works⁩

It’s less about training and more about just trying really really hard to solve the problem, even if that means going outside typical boundaries.

We’ve successfully re-created the problems that Asimov talked about 50 years ago with his I, Robot short stories. Strict laws are flawed by their design, and lead to situations that require more nuance. Except, in the real world cases, it’s the bots figuring that out before the humans have to circumvent the laws themselves.

Replying to an earlier post

Humans lie to themselves a robot doesn’t understand the difference between fact and fiction and thus isnt bound to the limitation. They try everything, possiable or not. And thus will find the edge case where a human would create a self imposed blind spot with out realizing it.

The goal is to midigate the robots attempts at the truely not possible so it doesn’t cause harm when they try it.

en