Technology

59358 readers

3846 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

329

AI Launches Nukes In ‘Worrying’ War Simulation: ‘I Just Want to Have Peace in the World’ (www.vice.com)

submitted 9 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

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It's not even that. The model making all the headlines for this paper was the weird shit the base model of GPT-4 was doing (the version only available for research).

The safety trained models were relatively chill.

The base model effectively randomly selected each of the options available to it an equal number of times.

The critical detail in the fine print of the paper was that because the base model had a smaller context window, they didn't provide it the past moves.

So this particular version was only reacting to each step in isolation, with no contextual pattern recognition around escalation or de-escalation, etc.

So a stochastic model given steps in isolation selected from the steps in a random manner. Hmmm....

It's a poor study that was great at making headlines but terrible at actually conveying useful information given the mismatched methodology for safety trained vs pretrained models (which was one of its key investigative aims).

In general, I just don't understand how they thought that using a text complete pretrained model in the same ways as an instruct tuned model would be anything but ridiculous.