Basically, it learned that it didn't need to fight until there was resource scarcity in a simulation.
Basically, it learned that it didn't need to fight until there was resource scarcity in a simulation.
Two racers are competing to see who runs faster, but if one pulls out a laser gun and shoots the other, that's aggressive.
Actually, it's an interesting word. Dictionary definitions of aggression frequently revolve around emotions - it's a very human word, probably not suitable for AI.
It's fair to call blitzing the QB an aggressive move in American football.
I think the point bencollier49 is trying to make is that we simply gave software a specific set of rules to train it. It doesn't know how we perceive the actions it is performing.
The game could be described as two people eating poisonous apples in order to prevent the other person from dying. In that case, the currently greedy one would be the hero.
I think the author is making the same point from another angle.
The AI learns what we would consider aggressive moves when conditions favor those moves.
It's not the name that makes me consider it aggressive, rather the fact that it works by harming the other player.
It's probably true the AI doesn't distinguish "aggressive" tools from other tools. Isn't that one of lessons here? If an AI isn't taught not to be aggressive, it will choose to harm other participants when that's the most effective strategy.
It is all good fun and laser tag until the AI manages the interests of your bank, your insurer, the stock market, everyone, and you desperately need a liberal government to enforce serious penalties for increasingly complex loopholes that the AI finds in a few seconds.
It's difficult to characterize that as aggression, especially if the system has no built in notion of harm or other-like-me.
That is what is actually scarier: Violence as paperwork.
Edit: unfortunately you've been doing this a lot. We ban accounts that do this, so please stop.