Do we need to remind people that LLMs don't actually have a brain, and really, really shouldn't be in charge of anything with real life implications?

They aren't actually doing a cost-benefit analysis on the use of Nuclear weapons. They're not weighing up the cost of winning vs. the casualties. They're literally not made for that.

They are trained to know words, and how those words link in with other words. They're essentially like kids doing escalation of imaginary weapons, and to them nuclear bombs are just a weapon particularly associated with being strong and deadly.

Yeah, we figured that one out back in... checks notes 1983. There is a reason why WarGames still holds up as an amazing movie even though the technology it depicts is far outdated.

AI is Ghandi confirmed.

"Huh, it seems the only winning move is to kill everyone"

The only way to win is not to play.

Shall we play a game?

For ghouls like Palantir, this is a feature not a bug.

Text predicition machine trained on violent, stupid, and reactionary datasets acts violent, stupid, and reactionary.

Fixed your headline.

But if you throw a trillion more dollars at it, we can fix this bro!

"More fundamentally, AI models may not understand ‘stakes’ as humans perceive them."

In my repeated attempts to solicit the advise of various language models for some situations which a programmer might face (e.g. being unable to read all the world's literature of a subject), I have come to conclude that they cannot understand "truth" as humans perceive it. Today's language models don't fail apologizing, stepping back or admitting inability - they fail confidently bluffing.

Possibilities:

• their training material does not include enough cases of humans apologizing about being unable to solve a problem
• a bias was introduced to get them to ignore such cases, since admitting such material resulted in too frequent refusal or self-doubt

Basically, today's models seem to be low on self-criticism and seem to have a bias towards believing in their own omniscience.

Finally, a few words about the sensibility of letting language models play this sort of a war game. It's silly. They aren't built for that task, and if someone would build an AI for controlling strategic escalation, they would train this AI on rather different information than a chat bot.

Almost all games saw tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons deployed. And fully three quarters reached the point where the rivals were making threats to use strategic nuclear weapons.

Tactical nuclear weapons are designed for use on the battlefield with lower explosive yields and shorter ranges, while strategic nuclear weapons are intended to target enemy infrastructure from a distance, typically with much higher yields. The key difference lies in their purpose: tactical nukes support immediate military objectives, whereas strategic nukes aim to weaken an enemy's overall war capability.

You know the orange felon/pedophile absolutely loves AI from the amount of AI images he posts.....so.

That is why we shouldn't build something like Skynet IRL.

It all makes sense if we remember that the garden variety AI we have today (ChatGPT, etc) are nothing more than fancy models that predict which words typically appear one after the other in books and reddit posts.

Ground zero please

Instant annihilation sounds pleasant

I like the Angry Planet podcast.

Here's an episode talking about AI in war (games): https://angryplanetpod.com/p/the-horror-of-ai-generals-making

Here's another one: https://angryplanetpod.com/p/the-importance-of-team-human-when

AI can read the Doomsday Clock.