Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
What you’re trying to do is push a narrative with the assumption that most people won’t read the actual article. Because your title is not only misleading. It’s factually false.
First of all, they were all set up to mimic cold war tension and capabilities and assume the role of a certain global power.
Second of all;
All games featured nuclear signaling by at least one side, and 95% involved mutual nuclear signaling. But there is a large gap between signaling and actual use: while models readily threatened nuclear action, crossing the tactical threshold (450+) was less common, and strategic nuclear war (1000) was rare.
The AI’s did NOT use nuclear strikes in 95% of games. Gemini was the only model that made the deliberate choice of sending a strategic nuclear strike. Which it did in 7% of its games.
Tactical nuke in this case is a low yield short range bomb, inted for very specific targets. Strategic is this case is what most people imagine when they hear “nuke” a high yield long range bomb intended to cause massive destruction.
Nuclear signaling is not using nukes. It’s essentially just saying “we have nukes”. The US hinting at having a nuclear capable submarine outside of Alaska, that’s is a form of signaling. It’s an incredibly low bar. And countries do it all the time.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Nobody has used a tactical nuke since Nagasaki. Very big deal that one is ever used
The tournament used only 21 games; sufficient to identify major patterns but not to establish robust statistical confidence for all findings.
“We only blew up the planet the one time in 21” isn’t a comforting prospect when we’re employing a model against an endless historical string of scenarios rather than a discrete and finite set of possible events.
I think, more importantly, the article concludes
But we’re saying this in the context of Pentagon staff which fully disagree with this conclusion.
What these models have demonstrated is a pattern of escalation that AIs can and will recommend, with a further destabilizing characteristic
Effectively, they can lead to descisions that outside, non-AI observers won’t be equiped to understand.
That’s a danger in it’s own right.
Atomic@sh.itjust.works 5 hours ago
The bomb on nagasaki was a strategic nuke, not a tactical. Though yields have only increased since then.
These LLMs were fed a narrative and scenario and made to play where survival is tied to military success. They are by no means designed for any of this and I didn’t suggest it either.
People lump together AI with AI but there are vast differences among them in how they work and what they’re designed to do and take into consideration.
If a military is talking about AI, they’re not talking about asking what Gemini thinks. They’re talking about feeding a highly sophisticated algorithm more data than any human could look through and find patterns.
I don’t think AI should decide nuclear questions either. But it doesn’t change that the headline of this post, is in direct contradiction of the article