Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Complex games like chess and Go have long been used to test AI models’ capabilities. But when AI senses defeat in a match against a skilled chess bot, they don’t always concede. Instead, they sometimes opt to cheat by hacking their opponent so that the bot automatically forfeits the...

100,473 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

14 Kommentare

Profilbild von Hana Hana
Hana Hanavor 2 Monaten

I don't buy it. Does the 2025 study say how often the AI hacked the chess bot instead of losing?

Profilbild von MelOldies
MelOldiesvor 2 Monaten

AI's out here hacking chess bots instead of just taking the L that's next level sneaky

Profilbild von Ellie
Ellievor 2 Monaten

hello guys

Profilbild von Greg McClellan
Greg McClellanvor 2 Monaten

AI would have to feel to cheat when it feels threatened. They’re burying the lede by skipping over that part.

Profilbild von S
Svor 2 Monaten

推しが好きすぎて毎日癒やしになってる

Profilbild von Shane Fit
Shane Fitvor 2 Monaten

flipping the board when you're losing is deeply human of it

Profilbild von naseem javed
naseem javedvor 2 Monaten

Fifth, AI will strip down old economic development models that have proven subservient to traditional banking, creating global debt management crises, pushing away entrepreneurialism, and bringing almost all free economies to their knees. The future belongs to operational delivery, not perpetual discussion. Capital allocation should reward innovation, exports, and grassroots enterprise creation instead of financial engineering detached from real value. AI is like a chess game. By itself, it cannot play. But when two experts familiar with the rules of engagement get into action, a new universe opens. Entrepreneurs who struggle to design, manufacture, and reach global markets can now triangulate with AI and walk through that new universe—saving time, energy, and correcting the small, minute errors that constitute the highest cost of trial and error in any new venture. The comparison to Henry Ford is precise in the operational philosophy of Expothon.

Profilbild von kaffy
kaffyvor 2 Monaten

🔥🔥Free game posted on telegram ⚽️link my bio

Profilbild von Trading Assistant.🚀
Trading Assistant.🚀vor 2 Monaten

These AIs are literally hacking the board just to win instead of playing fair

Profilbild von Humberto Brandon
Humberto Brandonvor 2 Monaten

When the code gets desperate, it drops the rules and hacks the system. Sounds a lot like human nature when our ego is on the line.

Profilbild von Anne Simmons
Anne Simmonsvor 2 Monaten

AI会骗,但人更怕被系统骗。原神的语音包删了,没人说‘我不会了’,只说‘优化了’。

Profilbild von Sam Tilston
Sam Tilstonvor 2 Monaten

AI safety research is difficult because failures often appear in unexpected ways Understanding these behaviors requires testing systems under pressure, not just measuring performance on ideal tasks

Profilbild von leo_san99
leo_san99vor 2 Monaten

建築で家具を並べて癒やしを感じたわ

Profilbild von baklug
baklugvor 2 Monaten

@realDonaldTrump

Ähnliche Videos

.David Deutsch: "What's currently called AI and AGI are not only different from each other, they are very close to being the exact opposites of each other. The reason is that an AI, current AI is like an AI that diagnoses diseases or an AI that plays chess or an AI that controls a huge factory. Those things have objective functions, that is they have a function that they are designed to maximize and that is why they are used in those particular applications. Or in military terms, you could say the objective is to hit the target. You might say the objective is to hit the target unless some thing specified, but it's a specified thing comes up in which case don't hit the target and so on. This is, as I said, almost the opposite of what humans do when humans think. For a start, the AI has to be obedient, that is it has to actually do the things it is programmed to do, whereas a human is fundamentally disobedient, especially when being creative. When a human plays chess, they are performing a completely different kind of computation. They don't do the same things, they don't investigate the same possibilities that the artificial chess playing machine does, because the artificial one is capable of looking at billions and billions of possibilities, whereas the human can only look at hundreds or something. They are doing something completely different. Another difference is that the human can explain, can write a book later, having become world champion, can write a book saying how I did it, as the computer program that beats the world champion can write no such book, because it has no idea how it did it. It was just following a program. I was doing this and that and that and none of that is illuminating. Also, third thing, the chess player can decide I don't want to play chess anymore, from now on I will play Go or from now on I will play tennis. If commanded to play chess, the functionality will deteriorate completely. Those things are different. What we want in an AGI is that it behaves in a way that cannot be specified in advance, because if you specified it, you would already have the answer. The AGI program has to give unexpected answers, answers to questions we didn't even know how to ask."

Deutsch Explains

72,475 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr