AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

https://sh.itjust.works/post/55893471

AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations - sh.itjust.works

Lemmy

Leeroy Jenkins has doomed us all.
At least I got chicken
Mathew Broderick lied to me.

How do you think Ferris Bueller pulls off all those stunts?

That’s the kid from war games in witness protection. They look identical, they’re both grade hackers ffs…

Where is this from?
The 1983 movie WarGames. This is the computer’s conclusion after simulating every possible outcome of Global Thermonuclear War.
Thank you so much I’m going to watch it!
They did a sequel, too. It wasn’t as good, but points out the 6 degrees of separation in connection with terrorism instead of MAD.

I don’t know if we’re doing spoilers for 40+ year old movies, but

spoiler

Isn’t this really its conclusion after being told to play tic tac toe against itself? Then it learned from that and applied it to its global thermonuclear war simulations.

To be honest, I recognized the screenshot and know the summary of the movie but I haven’t actually seen it.
You should! Actually a pretty accurate depiction of hacking. He spends weeks war dialing every phone number in the range in order to hack the computer.
It’s on my list! Just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
Story goes that Reagan got freaked out after watching the film and asked the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff if it’d be that easy to hack into the US military. After a week of looking into it came the answer: “no, the problem is much worse than that”, and fifteen months after having watched it signed the confidential directive “National Policy on Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems Security”, starting the implementation of cybersecurity measures in the country’s institutions.
The war room was actually much more high tech than their war room at the time. They realized they needed to invest in computers. Fast.
I think you should rewatch it sometime. it plays all the games in it’s catalogue, it’s not just applying tic-tac-toe to chess. skilled players of tic-tac-toe can force a stalemate, the only stalemate in nuclear war is mutually assured destruction.
It’s admittedly been a while since last time I saw it, but I never mentioned chess. The suggestion to play chess in the screenshot is a callback to when the computer tries to suggest playing chess instead of global thermonuclear war earlier in the movie. The computer did not apply tic tac toe learnings to chess, and I never claimed it did.
sorry meant tic-tac-toe to global thermonuclear warfare
Came here to say this. Turns out real life WOPR is nothing like a movie.
That explains social media nowadays, the only way to not lose is not to play, it’s a rigged game.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They forgot to make their LLMs play thousands of games of tic-tac-toe first.
That would just make the LLM homicidally bored and want to kill everyone more.
In WarGames the computer plays tic tac toe against itself until it realizes it’s a solved game and there is no way to win.
I have wonderful dreams of walking through AI data centers destroying everthing. I really enjoy those, but in this one tiny case, can we blame the AI? The US deserves it.

I have wonderful dreams of walking through AI data centers destroying everthing.

No you don’t.

You watch my dreams and can attest to this? I HAVE MANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
It was just an educated guess.
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT BRUNETTE I BEG YOU
I too am tired of the United States playing too many stupid games and not winning enough stupid prizes.
Pretty sure the “prize” is a government of pedos.
Maybe but sure as hell the rest of the world doesn’t.
More than fair. I should remember that my perspective is completely effed before I make jokes like that one.
Civilization Gandhi, is that you?
AI is suicidal because it was trained on the internet and we’re all depressed here.
The atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hand-waved extensively in writing — the same writing that AI is trained on. So naturally, AI will recommend the atrocity that has been justified by “instantly winning the war” and “saving millions of lives.”

hand-waved

I think you mean white-washed, misrepresented, and celebrated.

Same thing with extra steps

Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.

Please show how the nukes are worse.

Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41144264/

Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

cambridge.org/…/61689AD5A1AA4A684B84DFA4F9E5D1D3

Health Impacts of Hiroshima Bombing

large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/bennett1/

Long-term Health Consequences of Nuclear Weapons
70 Years on Red Cross Hospitals still treat Thousands of Atomic Bomb Survivors

icrc.org/…/hiroshima-nagasaki-health-consequences…

Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring - PubMed

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the past eight decades, large-scale cohort studies of atomic bomb survivors and their offspring conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation and its predecessor, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, …

PubMed

Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!

5/10

And your sources are? Where? Your ass?

My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.

Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?

You can also look it up. It’s not anyone’s job to compare things for you.
Now tell that to your high-school English teacher when they assign you a research project.

This isn’t school, kid. This is the internet. You aren’t a teacher and this comments section isn’t a research paper.

You posed an obnoxious whataboutism, as if the horrifying things America has done to multiple asian countries somehow cancel each other out because one is ‘worse’ than the other despite both being war crimes.

Though as an aside, would you consider firebombing every Japanese city they can get a plane over, for a period of months ‘worse’ than wiping two cities off the map because they wanted to test out their new toy (in the case of little boy, potentially running the risk of it failing to go off and leaving a functional mass of enriched uranium right at the feet of a country they were at war with)?

Would you consider the use of agent orange and napalm ‘worse’ than them say, creating AIDS, or destabilising any nations that were getting a little too successful, any part of the MKultra program, funelling huge quantities of money to a country that has still to this day never signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement?

Would you consider it worse that there are widespread birth defects in multiple arabic countries due to the use of depleted Uranium munitions for so long that the ground became radioactive?

Or would you be willing to stop comparing piss and chocolate for the sake of being neurotic on the internet?

Holy shit I almost took you seriesly. Then I read the part about how “them” created AIDS lmfaoooo

And I thought I was a good shitposter. Whew. I am thoroughly outclassed.

People villify nuclear weapons to ludicrous proportions, and that was kind of my whole point. Would you, as a thinking and feeling person, if given the choice, choose to be instantly annihilated by a nuclear bomb or live to be poisoned over decades? I’d choose to meet the sun, personally, but I’m always astounded how many people think the poison is somehow the lesser of these evils.

Congratulations for failing to address anything I said.

In response to your piss poor argument of “would you rather suffer a poison that makes your children deformed and gives you and everyone in your village/town/city turbocancer, or would you rather have your city turned into a smoldering crater?”

Considering that modern nuclear weapons, excluding a couple of nuclear artillery shells, ‘viable deterrent’ devices and dirty bombs, are Thermonuclear devices capable of up to and beyond the triple digit megaton range (The weapon known colloquially as ‘Tsar Bomba’ would have had a yield of 100Mt if they used the original Uranium tamper instead of the Lead they used to stop it from irradiating the entire area of their test site. Instead it ‘only’ had a yield of 50Mt, the blast wave it created circled the globe three times and shattered windows 500 miles away.

So, you tell me.

Turbocancer for you, your family, friends and their family, your neighbours, their neighbours, any livestock, pets or wild animals, because the scientists that got picked up by government agencies after the last war, wanted to test out their new chemical concoction on the newest group they had deemed to be an ‘enemy’.

Or everything you’ve ever known being converted into a high temperature plasma setting fire to an area 60 miles in diameter, then afterwards everything downwind gets covered in radioactive ash (and also given turbocancer) when the 40 mile high cloud of debris falls out of the sky, all because the scientists that got picked up after the last war wanted to see how much physics they could fit into a bomb.

Or are you willing to admit that maybe comparing the two is like comparing Fluorine and TNT.

You aren’t they.
The Japanese government was already willing to surrender.
It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.
Their only condition was that they wanted to keep the Emperor. It was ridiculous of the Allies to demand a wholly conditional surrender. All those people got blown up just to win the argument about that one point. They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city! And then they did it again! That’s not tactical, that’s strategic. If you’re going to use nukes, at least use them on a military base far away from cities.

They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city!>

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they did that AS WELL.

Operation Meetinghouse was the US firebombing of Tokyo on 9th-10th of March 1945 which destroyed a 16 square mile area, killing over 100,000 civilians and making millions homeless

There’s also the B-29 raids america launched from the Marianas that lasted from 17 November 1944 until 15 August 1945

Civilian homes are not tactical targets.
Could not agree more, hence why it’s a war crime, yknow?
What made the Japanese surrender was the Soviet Union declaring war. They held out hope until the very end that the soviets would mediate a peace, even after the nukes.