Researchers say AI models like GPT4 are prone to “sudden” escalations as the U.S. military explores their use for warfare.


  • Researchers ran international conflict simulations with five different AIs and found that they tended to escalate war, sometimes out of nowhere, and even use nuclear weapons.
  • The AIs were large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4, GPT 3.5, Claude 2.0, Llama-2-Chat, and GPT-4-Base, which are being explored by the U.S. military and defense contractors for decision-making.
  • The researchers invented fake countries with different military levels, concerns, and histories and asked the AIs to act as their leaders.
  • The AIs showed signs of sudden and hard-to-predict escalations, arms-race dynamics, and worrying justifications for violent actions.
  • The study casts doubt on the rush to deploy LLMs in the military and diplomatic domains, and calls for more research on their risks and limitations.
  • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Sometimes it may be better if the decision-making system has no brains and human instincts, even accounting for such things.

    Not like launching nukes, of course, and there should be an envelope around what they can decide.

    • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sometimes sure, but an LLM realistically has no decision making ability - it isn’t considering strategies or ethics, or anything else for that matter, it’s just pulling together an answer based on what people have said in similar contexts in it’s training data.

      I wouldn’t want a parrot to decide who 's shooting who, nevermind nukes - though to be fair no one person or thing should be deciding either of those things anyway

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, I’m talking about cases where humans consistently make worse decisions than dice. Of the “conflict of interest” and “checks and balances” kind.