Valnao@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoAIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulationswww.newscientist.comexternal-linkmessage-square107linkfedilinkarrow-up1463arrow-down121
arrow-up1442arrow-down1external-linkAIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulationswww.newscientist.comValnao@sh.itjust.works to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square107linkfedilink
minus-squareEarthman_Jim@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 hours agoThe electromagnetic pulse caused by a nuke would pop resisters too. AI would more likely use biological means to get rid of us.
minus-squareNihilsineNefas@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 hours agoLike heating the planet another degree and starving us out of existence by killing off biodiversity until the crops die out… Like they’re doing now? (I say “Us” when I just really mean the 99% of people that haven’t got self sufficient underground complexes)
minus-squareSocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·10 hours agoAssuming AI would care about itself and not just “solving the problem”.
minus-squareEarthman_Jim@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 hours agoYeah, these doom scenarios require cascading assumptions and no real answer, except maybe “don’t”.
The electromagnetic pulse caused by a nuke would pop resisters too. AI would more likely use biological means to get rid of us.
Like heating the planet another degree and starving us out of existence by killing off biodiversity until the crops die out… Like they’re doing now?
(I say “Us” when I just really mean the 99% of people that haven’t got self sufficient underground complexes)
Assuming AI would care about itself and not just “solving the problem”.
Yeah, these doom scenarios require cascading assumptions and no real answer, except maybe “don’t”.