The article is pretty obviously fabricated, and not a good job of it at all. I actually checked to see if it was dated April 1.
I can't quite figure out why it was fabricated, though. My best guess is that it's a test to see who among the readership and general population can detect such a bogus story. The results do not make me optimistic.
“We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising 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.”
The article is pretty obviously fabricated, and not a good job of it at all. I actually checked to see if it was dated April 1.
I can't quite figure out why it was fabricated, though. My best guess is that it's a test to see who among the readership and general population can detect such a bogus story. The results do not make me optimistic.
A cursory glace and search of key words and names from the author shows that the other articles I checked, are legitimate.
Can you detail to me, what it is about this article that makes you believe it to be fabricated?
In addition, the quote is located in the text at the linked source.
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aeronautical_Society
Abbreviation RAeS Formation January 1866
Think of it this way: Why would they publish such a thing if it really happened?
They only published it because they wanted to publish it. News is not just new and interesting stuff. It's all propaganda. u/Primate98 has a point.