content: Actually I suppose there is one valid reason for publishing something like this. It is a good warning against providing AI any option including violence or direct harm. It's not so much that they'll go crazy and turn Terminator on everybody, but rather that as humans we can't necessarily solve scenarios as efficiently as AI can. In my roshambo game, or Google's Apple Picker game, it's clear that the actual solution involves violence. But what if we create more elaborate, and real, scenarios? Imagine for instance we create an AI to patrol the streets of a dangerous area. It was intended mostly as a surveillance system but was provided lethal countermeasures to be used only in the case of saving more lives than would be lost in its usage. So for instance killing one person to save 2. This doesn't seem like that terrible an idea at first. But now imagine through some calculation it determines most murders are committed by persons of a certain profile and killing every single person that fits this profile would result in a net decrease in the total loss of life. Suddenly the bot starts seemingly arbitrarily murdering people in a discriminatory fashion. This is a very plausible scenario and a great argument against ever providing lethal options to AIs. Perhaps the idea of more 'toy game' like scenarios is to make things more graspable for laymen which would include our political representatives and military leadership.