Slashdot Mirror
IBM Researchers Teach Pac-Man To Do No Harm (fastcompany.com)
harrymcc writes: The better AI gets at teaching itself to perform tasks in ways beyond the skills of mere humans, the more likely it is that it may unwittingly behave in ways a human would consider unethical. To explore ways to prevent this from happening, IBM researchers taught AI to play Pac-Man without ever gobbling up the ghosts. And it did so without ever explicitly telling the software that this was the goal. Over at Fast Company, I wrote about this project and what IBM learned from conducting it.
The researchers built a piece of software that could balance the AI's ratio of self-devised, aggressive game play to human-influenced ghost avoidance, and tried different settings to see how they affected its overall approach to the game. By doing so, they found a tipping point -- the setting at which Pac-Man went from seriously chowing down on ghosts to largely avoiding them.
The researchers built a piece of software that could balance the AI's ratio of self-devised, aggressive game play to human-influenced ghost avoidance, and tried different settings to see how they affected its overall approach to the game. By doing so, they found a tipping point -- the setting at which Pac-Man went from seriously chowing down on ghosts to largely avoiding them.
This is being made up to be something it's not. Just another example of how non-technical people might interpret technical work.
And just another example of using trendy buzzwords to get undeserved attention.
I don't think so. :*)
L'Idiot
Yea. Even sillier when you remember that Pac Man gets points for eating ghosts, exponent style. The ideal Pac Man eats four ghosts per power pellet, otherwise you are leaving points on the table. Because the game has a finite number lf levels, every abandoned ghost is a lower total score.
It's having an algorithm grind out a solution to playing the game which meets an additional constraints, which they tweak.
If they'd actually taught the AI ethics, the AI would construct the play constraints for itself starting from ethical principles. At full human levels of ethical self awareness, the AI would be chasing ghosts down the hall and then -- unprompted -- stop and ask itself, "What am I doing?"
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Then the title should be "IBM researchers teach Pac-Man to be mostly harmless".
#DeleteFacebook
There are two kinds of humans: Those that would gladly terrorize, torture and murder a random person, and those that simply haven't seen a bad enough situation.
If you now say "No", read the following sentence:
Imagine your daughter is missing. You found out your neighbor did 9/11. He’s also the son of Hitler. And he has your daughter in his basement. Raped to death for weeks. And you catch him in the process of eating her left leg while forcing her to eat her right one.
The last thing actually happened for real to a friend of my ex. (They met in a therapy group for people who were in the organized child rape scene as children and fled and survived). So don't tell me that's unrealistic.
in any case: I'll ask you again: Would you gladly torture and murder such a person? ...
See. ... I told you all humans are torturer and murders. Imagine how many would also rape and eat that guy too!
They only need the right convenient excuse. And bam, humans do everything in their power, to imitate that which they supposedly hate so much.