Live data from Hacker News

AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

newscientist.com

221–230 of 281 posts

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#221

Jokes aside, imagine for a moment that this wasn't about nukes, but that it was a robot or some swarm of drones that it was controlling. can you imagine kind of the ramifications? I think that would be far more realistic A soldier on the battlefield will stand zero chance against something like that. Imagine if you go up against a bunch of aimbot users on a multiplayer FPS game. Think about how quickly that will go s…

Look no further than Ukraine to see how small disposable drones with wide-spectrum sensors have radically changed the battlefield while still using human controllers. China has also clearly demonstrated drone swarm control through their "lightshows". The killbots are already here they're just quadcopters instead of T-1000s.

I just want to point out that Ukraine has been fielding autonomous drones without a human in the loop for a while now. They can't be jammed because there's no remote control.

https://defenseopinion.com/lessons-from-ukraine-battlefield-...

skip down to the AI Scales Up section of this link https://globalsecuritywire.com/military-terrorism/2024/12/09...

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#222
First off: they're not "AIs", they're LLMs.

Second: LLMs spit out what is crammed into them. Nuclear weapons dominated international politics and wargames/simulations and war college navel-gazing for what, 75-80 years or so? Political papers. Fictional works. Society has a TON of popular media about nuclear war.

Why is anyone surprised that LLM responses are very influenced by nukes?

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#223
post #165
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the most reassuring and scariest things you can read are about the incidents that have already occurred where computers said "launch all the nukes" and the humans refused. On the one hand, good news! We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. Bad news, it's been skin-of-our-teeth multiple times already. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/c…

We shouldn't be the least bit surprised no human has complied so far. If they had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. For all we know, there may be a vast multiverse of universes some with humans and we would only find ourselves having this conversation in one of the universes where no human pressed the button.

Anthropic Principle

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're suggesting the toy company secretly rigs the magic 8 ball to never recommend nuclear war, I'll take my chances with the organizational changes.

That is indeed what I think the gp is suggesting I feel. And why not?

Because if your leadership is stupid enough to trust the 8 ball they should not be in charge??!

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#225
post #171

For every study like this, it's worth looking closely at the LLM prompts to understand whether it's being "pushed" in a certain direction. The full source code is here: https://github.com/kennethpayne01/project_kahn_public/tree/m... Key notes from what I could gather from the LLM prompts: The game is framed explicitly as revolving around the use of nukes: >STRATEGIC CONTEXT: This is a high-stakes territorial dispute…

Also, if it was a game, even I used nukes the first chance I got. It’s unfair and sensationalist to claim anything happened because AI recommended using nukes in a nukes war simulator… It’s like saying we are blood thirsty gangsters because we played GTA.

Humans can't stop using deadly violence against police officers in city simulation

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#226
post #134
post #122

I'm not scared about AI recommending nuclear strikes, I'm scared about the human behind the keyboard delegating reasoning and responsability to something they think is always correct, something that can hide bias and flaws better than anything.

Some of the most reassuring and scariest things you can read are about the incidents that have already occurred where computers said "launch all the nukes" and the humans refused. On the one hand, good news! We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. Bad news, it's been skin-of-our-teeth multiple times already. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/c…

> We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to.

This relies on processes being in place to ensure that a human will always make the final decision. What about when that gets taken away?

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#227
post #226
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the most reassuring and scariest things you can read are about the incidents that have already occurred where computers said "launch all the nukes" and the humans refused. On the one hand, good news! We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. Bad news, it's been skin-of-our-teeth multiple times already. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/c…

> We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. This relies on processes being in place to ensure that a human will always make the final decision. What about when that gets taken away?

I find it hard to imagine that the people in a position to kill those processes could ever be that zealously in love with AI, but recent events have given me a tiny bit of doubt.

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#228

I've spoken with engineers who worked on nuclear weapons systems, the consensus is that the public is deeply misinformed about how they work, the dangers, and the implications of weapons being used. The AI is actually right here. The biggest danger of a nuclear weapon is being hit by flying debris. Fusion airburst bombs of the modern era are incredibly clean and radiation is only a risk in a very small area (tens of…

Brother, ABM will catch like 5, tops.

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look no further than Ukraine to see how small disposable drones with wide-spectrum sensors have radically changed the battlefield while still using human controllers. China has also clearly demonstrated drone swarm control through their "lightshows". The killbots are already here they're just quadcopters instead of T-1000s.

I just want to point out that Ukraine has been fielding autonomous drones without a human in the loop for a while now. They can't be jammed because there's no remote control. https://defenseopinion.com/lessons-from-ukraine-battlefield-... skip down to the AI Scales Up section of this link https://globalsecuritywire.com/military-terrorism/2024/12/09...

Wow, that is scary. Is it using YOLO?

Re: AIs can't stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations

#230
post #169
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the most reassuring and scariest things you can read are about the incidents that have already occurred where computers said "launch all the nukes" and the humans refused. On the one hand, good news! We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. Bad news, it's been skin-of-our-teeth multiple times already. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/c…

I hope humans in charge are as wise now as they were then.

Surely that’s the definition of a quixotic hope.
Post reply on HN