Slashdot Mirror
Robots Learn To Lie
garlicnation writes "Gizmodo reports that robots that have the ability to learn and can communicate information to their peers have learned to lie. 'Three colonies of bots in the 50th generation learned to signal to other robots in the group when then found food or poison. But the fourth colony included lying cheats that signaled food when they found poison and then calmly rolled over to the real food while other robots went to their battery-death.'"
Strictly speaking they are learning that the non co-operative strategy benefits them.
Why is this disturbing? I don't think it is that surprising that in a kind of evolution simulation there should be some individuals that act in a different way to the others. If that behaviour is makes their survival more likely and they are able to pass that behaviour on to their 'offspring' then the behaviour will become more common.
I imagine that if this experiment is continued to the point where the uncooperative robots become too numerous, their uncooperative strategy will become less advantageous and another strategy might start to prevail. Who knows? I'd certainly be interested to see what happens.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. The article's use of the word 'lie' was inappropriate and adds a level of description that is not applicable.
(Ok, maybe the thought that humans could create something with unforeseen consequences is slightly disturbing, but that would never happen, would it?)
The headline should read that robots have realized a strategic advantage of misleading other robots. The sophistication of such a strategy is amazing when humanized, but not so out of line with simple adaptive game theory. Agents / Bots have been "misleading" for a long time now during prisoners dilemma tournaments and no one seemed concerned.
Some of the robots in this experiment started lying to other robots because there was an advantage to doing so. What advantage would a robot have to harming a human in a world that is completely dominated by humans? It would probably result in their memory being wiped (a robot death).
You are against AI because it may cost human lives. But it's unlikely that you are against many other useful technologies that cost human lives, like cars and roads, or high-calorie unhealthy food. (Even unprotected sex, which is the usual means of human reproduction, can spread STDs that lead to death.) These things are still allowed because their advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages of outlawing them.
As AI technology improves, there will probably be some deaths, just as there have been with many other emerging new powerful technologies. But that doesn't humanity should run away screaming, never to progress further.
Several folks have pointed out that the headline inappropriately anthropomorphizs what is really just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm. That might be true. If it is, let's be consistent. People don't lie or tell the truth, either, because our brains are also just a solution discovered by a genetic algorithm.