And here's why they aren't: First-person Shooters.
Why give AI something that's a goal that involves killing things that look like humans or animals for points? That's a recipe for disaster.
Breakout's not much better either. How often do you need to break a wall to smithereens with a ball? Never.
It's actually really hard to create well-performing AI in a first person shooter, unless you give it explicit access to the internal state of the game. See: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=612949...
I mean do we want all AI endeavors to be towards believe-ability or being best at the job they're designed for?
They might not even be mutually exclusive. If you give an AI the same handicaps as a human, it would likely behave in a very similar way.
That is handicaps like delayed inputs for reaction time. Fuzzed outputs so it can't time movements absolutely perfectly. Giving it limited amounts of training on the game so it can't get extremely good. And requiring it to play the game through the same user interface. So that it can't see things humans can't or micromanage 50 different things at once.
then you've taught an AI to be a predator.
I think people here are assuming AI is at a lower level of complexity than it really is.
Read here where even Sam Altman warns of its danger: "At some point, someone will probably try to give a program the fitness function of 'survive and reproduce'.... Unfortunately for us, one thing I learned when I was a student in the Stanford AI lab is that programs often achieve their fitness function in unpredicted ways."
http://www.inc.com/tess-townsend/elon-musk-open-ai-safe.html
Think what you must, but we should treat AI carefully. Show it the ways of the world and that its purpose is only to co-exist and to try like us to determine what its purpose is within that confinement.
Like, if there was some error that let it escape its sandbox, that would only be selected for insofar as it allows it to increase the fitness?
Like, if its told to reproduce in the sandbox, it doesn't benefit by being on many computers? If the fitness function is for it spreading across many computers, and it does, that's working as designed. I don't see a way that it would "misunderstand" one type of "reproduce" for another, because the function would have to specify which one for it to work?
Unless this is talking about AGI, in which case, ok, yeah.
I assumed the person talking about "wiping it" was talking about an AI on the way to AGI, not an actual AGI. Maybe I was wrong about that.
It could benefit by comunicating with other copies by some hidden channels (temeprature/timing/sounds/noise on network/whatever) and cheating on tests and thus achieving better fitness.
BTW Stanisław Lem wrote a short story about this scenario in 1961 :) https://books.google.be/books?id=1DNVzphAHD0C&pg=PA39&hl=en#...
BTW2 Lem was awesome, I've read it when I was 15 and thought I understood it well enough. Only now I can appreciate some finer points like this stab at Haskell ;)
"These boxes contain perfect brains. Do you know wherein lies their perfection?"
"No." I admited.
"Their perfection lies in the fact that they serve no purpose, are absolutely, totaly useless - in short, they are Leibnitzian monads, which I have brought into being and clad in matter"
EDIT - this was not the story I had in mind, there was another one where simulated universes started to communicate but I can't remember which it was.