this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
327 points (85.9% liked)

Technology

58108 readers
4829 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
L4s@lemmy.world
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
327
AI Launches Nukes In ‘Worrying’ War Simulation: ‘I Just Want to Have Peace in the World’ (www.vice.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MakunaHatata@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world
139 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 82 points 7 months ago (26 children)

Why the actual fuck is anyone considering putting LLMs into the driving seat of anything?!

Of course they make fucked up decisions with no proper or justifiable rationale, because they have no brains. They're language models, stochastic parrots stringing together sentences to fit the prompt(s) given to them.

[–] Rageagainstbelief@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Why the actual fuck is anyone considering putting humans into the driving seat of anything?!

Of course they make fucked up decisions with no proper or justifiable rationale, because they have no brains. They're language models, stochastic parrots stringing together sentences to fit the prompt(s) given to them.

Sorry I didn’t mean for that to be snarky. My point in doing that was to say individual humans aren’t much better. That’s why it’s important not to place too much power or even agency on one person.

A language model has in its head, wrong word, what only multitudes could contain and maybe it’s detecting, another wrong word, a pattern with human civilization through our history and interactions. And if it’s goal is to achieve peace what other solution is there? I don’t believe in a world without conflict. I wish I could.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't mind having my own arguments thrown back in my face, but I do disagree with the premise that humans are anything like LLMs.

We have more than just a catalogue of conversational training data. We are hugely influenced by our current emotions, experiences, and traumas/fears.

I do agree with the idea that we shouldn't give too much power to one person, but I'd argue it's due to a lack of objectivity and a tendency towards selfish actions, rather than acting like an LLM.

Ultroning the world to achieve world peace isn't exactly the best outcome, especially for innocent folks caught in the crossfire

[–] Rageagainstbelief@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I didn’t mean to throw your argument back at you. I agree with it. I just read it and thought you could describe humans with it as well albeit not that completely or charitably. I think by no means should we allow LLMs to make decisions. They could help us be more objective maybe in some cases by educating us. But yeah handing over agency to an AI is a frightening concept.

And no of course wiping out civilization is not a solution. I can get pessimistic about our ability to avoid destroying ourselves with or without the help of AI. I still think world peace is largely unattainable. At least without some draconian controls in place and a whole lot of time and education. I could change my mind on that. I hope we’ll get there someday.

load more comments (23 replies)