For folks who've been reading versions of this fun bit of AI military news, I just want to nudge you to Robert Sheckley's 1953 story "Watchbird", about anti-murder drones that go to... well, all-too-predictable extremes to carry out their mission. Long story short: SF has been all over the dangers of automating death machines for 70+ years. But apparently some folks thought those stories were instruction manuals? 🙃
I’d have to see the receipts on these stories.
Seems to me the drone would lose all its points if it killed itself without killing a drone.
I’ve read waaaaaay too much science fiction in my time. This sounds like too familiar a theme from sci-fi.
I'm confused by your statement. I literally referenced a 70-year-old SF story, so yes, I'm very much noting the fact that this is a familiar scifi theme.
The news item today is about a training simulation in which the "AI" found a workaround that involved damaging the operator to achieve its mission priority.
What exactly are you puzzled by?
Copy that! This is where I first read the report.
I was confused about the fact this was purportedly a *simulation* and not a real event, so there’s definitely that!
But I think my logic stands; the drone, programmed to kill enemy SAM’s would be directing itself to fail in its mission if it killed the operator (or communications towers in his stead). The drone would be no more and could no longer carry out its mission and that would completely go against its prime directive. The result is completely illogical in both cases.
There's nothing in the report to suggest that the drone suicided - only, attacked the communications tower, to keep the operator from disrupting it on route to its main target. Maybe that's where the confusion lies? Perhaps you thought the situation involved the drone terminating itself in the process of attacking its operator in this simulation?
That’s precisely what I thought! It wasn’t made clear in the scenarios, but f it is not a suicide drone my questions don’t make sense.
So… I retract my questions and bow out.
It's tough to reach clarity when everyone's in panic mode over news spin, eh?
Glad to have chatted over this all the same! :) Hope you have a great day ahead!
@Luber905
If you want a more technical briefing, the story was originally reported among highlights from the RAeS Future Combat Air & Space Capabilities Summit, held in late May. Quick search for the subheading making a joke about "SkyNet":
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/