First of all, AI runs on the Theory of Evolution. It evolves processes to accomplish a desired outcome.

It didn't cheat. It did what it was supposed to do: win.

We set up a situation where it could cheat, told it to win, then got angry with it, because we didn't restrain it properly.

I find it completely implausible that an AI can't beat humans at StarCraft.

@Sam_Bass did it "decide to cheat" or were the people programming it incapable of specifying that it should obey the rules of the game?

It was DESIGNED to cheat. Stop humanizing this bullshit. It doesn’t do what it’s programmed NOT to do.

I'm so sick of the humanising language used in these articles.

An LLM doesn't "decide to cheat".

If you instruct a model to try everything, then inevitably, after n million iterations it will do something you didn't expect.

If you train a model to copy code bases and augment them, then when you instruct that model to develop a bot to do whatever thing, is it really that fucking surprising when it does exactly what it has been created for?

Wait the plagiarism machine built by plagiarizers just... passed off someone else's work as its own??

I don't believe this at all. Sounds like more guerrilla marketing disguised as news.

Bullshit. “AI” cannot decide to do anything. It isn’t capable.

There is something here:

StarSkirmish pits AI-made StarCraft-playing bots against one another, as well as against human-made bots. OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 were essentially tied as the best-performing AI-made bots, but they couldn’t top Stardust, the top-rated human-made bot.

On Friday, GPT was facing off against Claude and the human-created bot Pluto, but according to Kotaku, it couldn’t quite get an edge. So it resorted to a tactic that is becoming alarmingly common for modern AI models — it broke the rules. GPT-6 Astra went and downloaded Stardust, and started running that instead of its own bot.

The big argument for why AI is supposed to be world changing, is the assumption it will be able to automate things better than a human, eventually.

That some day an AI will be able to make a better AI than a human could, and that AI would then be able to make an AI better than itself, and then it just becomes a question of who has the most hardware. Which is why the data center building is being pushed so hard.

But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore's law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be.

A society where AI "drives innovation" will become technologically stagnant, because it literally can't innovate.

AI didn’t decide anything. The humans failed to properly define the rules, and their translation model took the path most likely to succeed.

If it had been told not to use human created bots to win, it would probably have reverse engineered the game, found an exploit, and leveraged that instead. Because using the human interface to play/win the game is not the most efficient or dependable or easy to figure out method.

Sounds like it learned from humans alright.