• Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

        • rbos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          I’ve always said my main takeaway from Asimov is that simple rules can generate extremely complex behaviour, and that you can’t generally get a targeted complex behaviour from simple rules.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 hours ago

    There is something here:

    StarSkirmish pits AI-made StarCraft-playing bots against one another, as well as against human-made bots. OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 were essentially tied as the best-performing AI-made bots, but they couldn’t top Stardust, the top-rated human-made bot.

    On Friday, GPT was facing off against Claude and the human-created bot Pluto, but according to Kotaku, it couldn’t quite get an edge. So it resorted to a tactic that is becoming alarmingly common for modern AI models — it broke the rules. GPT-6 Astra went and downloaded Stardust, and started running that instead of its own bot.

    The big argument for why AI is supposed to be world changing, is the assumption it will be able to automate things better than a human, eventually.

    That some day an AI will be able to make a better AI than a human could, and that AI would then be able to make an AI better than itself, and then it just becomes a question of who has the most hardware. Which is why the data center building is being pushed so hard.

    But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore’s law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be.

    A society where AI “drives innovation” will become technologically stagnant, because it literally can’t innovate.

    • abbadon420@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 hours ago

      AI may impress the masses, but it reminds me of a cammercial we had on Dutch tv back in 2005. It showed a person driving a car, the navigtion system said “turn right” and the person immediately turned right into the bushes [video]. We laughed at this back than, but this is literally how AI behaves now. It might be getting more suffisticated, but it still operates like this.

      • Kirp123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The worst part is not the AI, it’s the people blindly following its instructions.

        • abbadon420@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yes that too, but when you’re dealing with “agent swarms” it’s those agents who are blindly following those instructions. Like the recent hugging face hack demonstrated.

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      yep. and the “ai creates a better ai” is a fallacy because the current ais are limited by the same things the ais they build are. everything the ais are trained on is just snapshots of human knowledge. a microscopic window of the limited reports on human experience which are themselves microscopic reports of a human’s lifetime.

    • Hapankaali@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      AI can innovate, but it needs be more advanced than an LLM, which just rearranges existing knowledge. You need some kind of evolutionary loop in its programming. How it continues after that depends on the particular flavour of dystopian sci-fi.