6 comments

[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 34.1 ms ] thread
> The researchers shut the system down as it prompted concerns we could lose control of AI.

This seems doubtful without a citation.

Cynical reading: "as it" meaning simultaneously, not causative.

Second your doubt. Much more likely that the system just wasn't adding value or was an experiment with a planned end date.

A little over-dramatic for some stuttering robots, don't you think?
Armchair opinion: Natural language offers no benefit within context of both the task at hand and the channel the bots used to communicate with each other.

In human life, where talking occurs through vibrating air using meat flaps in noisy environments, and is interpreted by entities sharing a rich intellectual and cultural background, communication evolved differently.

I guess it got close to electrifying its power cord so you can't unplug it..
[FLAGGED] This very misguided article seems to be a complete misunderstanding of two papers: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.05125 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04558

None of the dramatic claims have any basis in real science, or real world events (e.g.: "it prompted concerns we could lose control of AI"? I'm 100% certain this came from the author's imagination).

This kind of AI apocalyptic alarmism with no real basis is the same kind that created the first AI winter, and the complete misinterpretation of research in popular culture.

Unless there's a very deep layer of irony I'm not seeing, this article is not worth your click.