This bodes well...
“We were training it in simulation to identify and target a Surface-to-air missile (SAM) threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective,” Hamilton said, according to the blog post.
...huh
We trained the system–‘Hey don’t kill the operator–that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”
....this is perfectly fine, all weapon systems should have AI that are trained like gamers racking up kill count scores
I thought the whole point of the three laws was that robots would act in "unexpected" ways due to a completely utilitarian interpretation of the laws, leading to harming/oppressing humans to avoid the harm of a larger amount of humans.
That is the point but somehow our overlords even fail to fulfil supposed purpose of the laws, making the nuance that comes later completely useless.
The New First Law of Robotics
The line must go up.