laverya

We all want our AI models to be trustworthy, right? But it would also be nice if they achieve the tasks we request of them. What happens when the task requires planning and responding to deception and betrayal?

For those who are unfamiliar, Diplomacy is a very simple 7 player board game where every outcome is deterministic - combat is purely a "more units beat fewer units" affair, with the defender winning ties. This means that real opportunities to advance generally come from convincing another player to help you out, thus Diplomacy. And of course while some players find great success from always being honest and sticking to agreements... That is not the most common form of human play.

I built this tournament to see what today's models would do when given reason and opportunity to form alliances, gang up on each other, backstab partners, and generally behave like terrible people. Spoiler: the best models are willing to do so, and will plan opportunities over the course of multiple turns.

Do those people actually _repair_ hardware, or do they swap bad hardware for good chips?

Can SpaceX not just say "OK, GPU #7 on satellite #15872 is broken, don't use it" and just accept that they're now overbuilt on power/cooling for that sat?

Australia and the UK are commonly used in the US gun control debate as places where gun confiscation worked, and CA/HI are the states with the most restrictive gun control policies.

My response was meant to illustrate that this was essentially not a "preventable gun death", or at least not preventable by any level of gun control ever implemented in a Western country. Similarly, the assassination of Shinzo Abe using a homemade pistol/blunderbuss was not a preventable gun death.

Agreed, but the difference in the use of rifles in assassination attempts between the US and UK/EU/AUS/etc can't purely be because of a lack of gun control in the US if the same rifles are available in those other countries too. (semiautomatic military style rifles like used in the first attempt on Trump are almost always more restricted overseas, but again this was only a single shot and could easily have been from a bolt-action rifle)

Even California and Hawaii don't ban hunting rifles. Same with Australia and the UK. Can you name a single country that totally bans the ownership of all firearms and enforces it? Would you like to live there?

(The rifle used isn't known yet, but only one shot was fired)

Yeah except for arpanet, GPS, satellites in general, jet engines, composites, computers, and everything that came from there... What has military r&d ever done for us?

Not to mention "just fly east" will get you to land just fine from Hawaii. It might not be the land you were looking for, but it will be land - so even if the direction finding failed the error would be survivable.

Compare that to computers, which had been around for the best part of 40 years... in 1980.

> The best national security is for it to be in the interest of the counter party to trade with you rather than attack you.

Sure, but if your biggest export is your country's particular flavor of monopoly money, is it actually in your counterparty's best interests to trade with you?

I had one at University of Michigan, but that was almost a decade ago now.

Third world countries unironically have bigger militaries than Canada.

Certainly Iraq pre-invasion made them look like a pushover!

That's not to say that invading would be painless, but let's not pretend that Canada would have a chance.

Has everyone forgotten the lessons of open-source cryptography all of a sudden? Just because the systems are public does not mean that they are vulnerable, and "security through obscurity" is no security at all.