Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reality

13 (68.4%)

Universe

3 (15.8%)

The World

3 (15.8%)

Total Members Voted: 19

[Starver]

At the upper end, a dumb storage of every single possible position[1] vector-multiplied with every possible ruleset[2] wouldn't technically need to be AIed

More than atoms in the universe. Good luck storing that.

I'm suggesting repurposing the place they store all the universes[/i[, obviously.

[lemon10]

AI news:

Artificial intelligence is hitting the global labour market "like a tsunami" International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said on Monday.
Artificial intelligence is likely to impact 60% of jobs in advanced economies and 40% of jobs around the world in the next two years, Georgieva told an event in Zurich.
"We have very little time to get people ready for it, businesses ready for it," she told the event organised by the Swiss Institute of International Studies, associated to the University of Zurich

Not particularly shocking news, especially since most of the companies that are adopting AI are hiding the fact that they are doing so because of backlash or other internal issues.
Shits going to get very hard for a lot of people when entire portions of the economy (RIP call centers) get all the jobs replaced by AI.
Even the people in physical jobs won't be safe since all the people that were automated away are going to still need work and will flock to harder to automate physical jobs, driving down wages.
---

OpenAI is pausing the use of the popular Sky voice in ChatGPT over concerns it sounds too much like the "Her" actress Scarlett Johansson.

You know how the GPT-o voice totally sounded like Scarlett Johanson from the movie Her and the whole circumstances basically match it to a T? Yeah, they just scrapped that because Scarlett hired lawyers and was about to sue them. Turns out that Altman *had* asked if they could use her voice and she unequivocally said no earlier.
---

Spoiler: Large Image (click to show/hide)

Comprehensive overview of all the related drama.
There has been an exodus of top safety researchers away from OpenAI over the last few years, with some quitting, being forced out, or merely being sidelined. They also dissolved their superalignment team that was in charge of figuring out how to make AI that doesn't kill everyone.
OpenAI's lax safety stance is super worrying to me, although I suppose if you don't really believe in AI it isn't a big deal.
---

Then the enemy tries to mess with AI and things become messy.

Look at a simple example. Chess engines. They beat humans easily... But what if we change the rules slightly? Human players will adapt instantly and successfully apply all their experience from regular chess. The chess engine needs to be retrained\reprogrammed.

General: El presidente, there is a problem with the new AI fighter jets, five have been shot down.
Presidente: WHAT! You promised it would be the equal of the CyberplaneX and would be impossible for any country but Xmerica to shoot down.
General: This black box recording will explain it.
The general turns on the TV, and on the screen a fleet of blimps armed with 16th century naval cannons appear. The AI planes are confused and unable to perceive either of the ancient technologies as threats, and just fly in circles while the blimps take shots at them. Eventually a cannonball manages to connect and a plane goes down.
General: I'm told the only way to fix it would be a complete new training run, it would cost another $100 trillion X-dollars.

Im willing to bet Air-to-air AI fighters would be easier to program than air-to-ground. Fewer things you have to program the AI to correctly identify. If it can reliably tell the difference between the aircraft you and your allies are using and those of enemies and non-combatants, then militaries might even give it the OK to fire at will at any target it identifies as an enemy aircraft.

Yeah, stuff in the air is categorically simpler, shooting stuff on the ground is much more nuanced, but even then its way simpler then trying to do AI stuff with a normal ground based robot. Accidentally killing noncombatants is the big concern, but that's fairly simple to solve by keeping a human in the loop and requiring them to OK every engagement.

[Eric Blank]

Honestly I can't imagine not having ground crews just monitoring aircraft at all times, manned or not.

[lemon10]

Honestly I can't imagine not having ground crews just monitoring aircraft at all times, manned or not.

Its not quite as relevant for the big AI aircraft (and obviously the blimp thing is a joke), but there will be very significant pressures to make drones fully autonomous and cut the human out of the loop entirely.
What if the drone is jammed and can't respond to a signal or is otherwise out of range? What if the 2 seconds of reaction time it takes for a human operator to respond would make the difference between killing a dozen hostile ground troops and the drone being blown up?

Military sources say one Ukrainian company alone is producing 45,000 cheap drones a month.

What if you have two million drones spread out across the country and don't have enough operators to respond to requests in a timely manner? What if you need the drone to operate in radio silence?


Obviously the tech isn't at the point where AI drones are really a thing yet, much less where its possible to stick locally run AI on tiny $1000 drones, but once the tech advances enough there will be strong incentives to have them be fully autonomous.

[King Zultan]

Honestly I can't imagine not having ground crews just monitoring aircraft at all times, manned or not.

Its not quite as relevant for the big AI aircraft (and obviously the blimp thing is a joke), but there will be very significant pressures to make drones fully autonomous and cut the human out of the loop entirely.

I don't believe that because somebody has to maintenance the things and nobody's built robots that can do that yet.

[Starver]

Its not quite as relevant for the big AI aircraft (and obviously the blimp thing is a joke),

Well, I know for certain that in GTA: San Andreas, if you annoyed the authorities enough whilst flying the jumpjet, it was significantly harder to avoid the jumpjets (and missiles) sent to kill you than if you were instead flying the light plane. But the player wouldn't have the same difficulties if the position was reversed.

Checkmate, Rockstar Games!

( )

[lemon10]

I don't believe that because somebody has to maintenance the things and nobody's built robots that can do that yet.

Various people have many definitions of what constitutes a lethal autonomous weapon. The official United States Department of Defense Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems, defines an Autonomous Weapons Systems as, "A weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator."
...
Other organizations, however, are setting the standard of autonomous weapon system in a higher position. The British Ministry of Defence defines autonomous weapon systems as "systems that are capable of understanding higher level intent and direction. From this understanding and its perception of its environment, such a system is able to take appropriate action to bring about a desired state. It is capable of deciding a course of action, from a number of alternatives, without depending on human oversight and control - such human engagement with the system may still be present, though. While the overall activity of an autonomous unmanned aircraft will be predictable, individual actions may not be."

An autonomous weapon system is one that can fight and decide targets on its own, it doesn't mean it can repair/rearm itself or that they can make more of themselves a la skynet.
E:

human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous).
human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action.
human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved.

And cutting humans out of the loop doesn't mean humans aren't involved at all, it merely means that they aren't needed for the system to decide to target or kill someone.