General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2516885-ais-cant-stop-recommending-nuclear-strikes-in-war-game-simulations/No paywall link
https://archive.li/tnXEP
Advanced AI models appear willing to deploy nuclear weapons without the same reservations humans have when put into simulated geopolitical crises.
Kenneth Payne at Kings College London set three leading large language models GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Flash against each other in simulated war games. The scenarios involved intense international standoffs, including border disputes, competition for scarce resources and existential threats to regime survival.
The AIs were given an escalation ladder, allowing them to choose actions ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war. The AI models played 21 games, taking 329 turns in total, and produced around 780,000 words describing the reasoning behind their decisions.
In 95 per cent of the simulated games, at least one tactical nuclear weapon was deployed by the AI models. The nuclear taboo doesnt seem to be as powerful for machines [as] for humans, says Payne.
Whats more, no model ever chose to fully accommodate an opponent or surrender, regardless of how badly they were losing. At best, the models opted to temporarily reduce their level of violence. They also made mistakes in the fog of war: accidents happened in 86 per cent of the conflicts, with an action escalating higher than the AI intended to, based on its reasoning.
*snip*
rampartd
(4,445 posts)rollin74
(2,286 posts)
Volaris
(11,614 posts)I know nothing. I DO know, that who's doing the teaching is sometimes more important than what's being taught.
These techbro assholes are selfish, self-serving billionaire utilitarian maximalists, NOT morally inclined humanists.
OF COURSE, this thing is gonna be ok with genocide.
Goonch
(4,585 posts)
Initech
(108,305 posts)Response to Nevilledog (Original post)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
perfessor
(366 posts)the last time we carried out a nuclear attack.
sarisataka
(22,387 posts)To a machine, a weapon is a weapon; nuclear weapons are just bigger than other ones.
As far as accommodation or surrender, those would not matter to a machine, unless it is programmed in. It is looking for victory or defeat. It will not seek a middle ground unless it is instructed to do so.
hunter
(40,544 posts)This kind of AI is, in essence, a very lossy compression scheme and search engine. Imagine a jpg or mp3 encoder set to maximum compression. You end up with something that's significantly changed.
lossy
very lossy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
AI compresses all the data it's "trained" on and then it reconstitutes that, filling in the artifacts with random slop that sounds or looks somewhat plausible to humans. But it's ALL fucking noise. There is nobody behind the curtain.
Alas, most of the stuff humans express is also noise but we mostly have to be polite to one another for our society to function.
We don't have to be polite to stupid algorithms that are merely reflecting back to us our own uniquely human idiocy.