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.
  • CeeBeeEnglish
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    8 months ago
    edit-2
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    They didn’t. They used LLMs.

    Edit: to everyone saying that LLMs “are chat bots”. I know it seems that way to the layperson and how it’s often explain, but it’s not true.

      • CeeBeeEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        A chat bot can be an LLM, but an LLM is not inherently a chat bot.

    • forrgottEnglish
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      A glorified chatbot, in other words.

      • CeeBeeEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        In other words, you don’t really really know what LLMs are.

      • tabularEnglish
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        If one is feeling cynical; humans are chatbots in shoes.

        • kibiz0rEnglish
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Searle speaks frankly. Challenging those who deny the existence of consciousness, he wonders how to argue with them. “Should I pinch [those people] to remind them they are conscious? remarks Searle. “Should I pinch myself and report the results in the Journal of Philosophy?

          • tabularEnglish
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            edit-2
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            One can only investigate their own consciousness, so we can’t outrule chatbots are also having some subjective experience 🙃

            • kibiz0rEnglish
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              I might as well suppose the same of grep then.

        • forrgottEnglish
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I don’t know if I love or hate your comment. (Yes, you’re right, shut up.) Well played, Internet stranger.

    • FiskFisk33English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      What do you think large language model means? If you want desicion making, you should train a model on data relevant to said desicion making. ^

      This is like being confused as to why a hammer does a shit job of driving screws.

      • CeeBeeEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        What do you think large language model means?

        Not a chat bot, because that’s not what they are. And saying so is both reductive and wholly incorrect.

        If you want desicion making, you should train a model on data relevant to said desicion making.

        Partly true. There’s more to it than throwing domain specific data at the training set.

    • Max-PEnglish
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That’s what the “language” part of “Large Language Model” means. It processes, predicts and generates language. You can omit the chat part if you want, but it’s still a text prompt to text response generator. The chat part just feeds it back the last couple messages for context. It doesn’t understand anything.

      • CeeBeeEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        That’s what the “language” part of “Large Language Model” means. It processes, predicts and generates language.

        Language does not mean “text”. It’s not “Large Text Generator”. The core definition of the word language is “communication”.

        An LLM isn’t (always) trained exclusively on text. And even those that are become greater than the raw sum of its parts. What that means is that the model can learn context not in the raw text itself.

        The chat part just feeds it back the last couple messages for context

        Partially true. There’s more to it though.

        It doesn’t understand anything.

        And neither does antivirus, but it still does its job.