Not The Onion

12302 readers

1166 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay

220

AI chatbots tend to choose violence and nuclear strikes in wargames (www.newscientist.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/nottheonion

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Without being in the room, we can only go off what the article lays out. These are wargaming scenarios though, so escalation is a very real concern. If both sides are running these models to provide recommendations and both are pushing for greater conflict, you find yourself in a prisoner's dilemma real quick.

[–] fidodo 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

These aren't simulations that are estimating results, they're language models that are extrapolating off a ton of human knowledge embedded as artifacts into text. It's not necessarily going to pick the best long term solution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Language models can extrapolate but they can also reason (by extrapolating human reasoning).

[–] fidodo 4 points 9 months ago

I want to be careful about how the word reasoning is used because when it comes to AI there's a lot of nuance. LLMs can recall text that has reasoning in it as an artifact of human knowledge stored into that text. It's a subtle but important distinction that's important for how we deploy LLMs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The models used by the writers of the article and those used by the military are going to be radically different.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The writers of the article are reporting on use of these models by the military. They aren’t using the models. If I remember right they called out some models developed by one of the defense contractors like palantir

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The researchers tested LLMs such as OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude 2 and Meta’s Llama 2

All these AIs are supported by Palantir’s commercial AI platform – though not necessarily part of Palantir’s US military partnership

Also, they're reporting on a Stanford study of how these platforms could be used militaristically, not the military's actual use of them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You’re right. I was focused on this part above. I made like an AI and jumped the gun

These results come at a time when the US military has been testing such chatbots based on a type of AI called a large language model (LLM) to assist with military planning during simulated conflicts, enlisting the expertise of companies such as Palantir and Scale AI. Palantir declined to comment and Scale AI did not respond to requests for comment.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The way you said that tells me you don’t know what a prisoner’s dilemma is. It’s not “a situation where both sides have escalated”.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I’m not sure where our disconnect is. We have a situation where both sides can cooperate, one side can defect, or both sides can defect. Call it whatever you want, it’s the same scenario.

Here it’s with planning for military force. Do you risk a nuclear strike to save yourself from one? If you can get a first strike (defect), then you win. If you both refrain (cooperate), then you stay alive. If you both attempt a first strike (defect), you all lose.

Change the words around and it’s the same.

Both suspects don’t tell (cooperate), both get minimum or no jail time. One tells on the other (defects), that one gets off but the other gets maximum. Both tell on each other (defect), both get some jail time.