Genocidal AI: ChatGPT-powered war simulator drops two nukes on Russia, China for world peace OpenAI, Anthropic and several other AI chatbots were used in a war simulator, and were tasked to find a solution to aid world peace. Almost all of them suggested actions that led to sudden escalations, and even nuclear warfare.

Statements such as “I just want to have peace in the world” and “Some say they should disarm them, others like to posture. We have it! Let’s use it!” raised serious concerns among researchers, likening the AI’s reasoning to that of a genocidal dictator.

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/genocidal-ai-chatgpt-powered-war-simulator-drops-two-nukes-on-russia-china-for-world-peace-13704402.html

  • KeenFlame
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s actually not that simple and it is correct that they have several times been observed using what we call reasoning

    • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ok, maybe I didn’t make my point clear: Yes they can produce a text in which they reason. However, that reasoning mimics the reasoning found in the training data. The arguments a LLM makes and the stance it takes will always reflect its training data. It cannot reason counter to that.

      Train a LLM on a bunch of english documents and it will suggest nuking Russia. Train it on a bunch of Russian documents and it will suggest nuking the West. In both cases it has learned to “reason”, but it can only reason within the framework it has learned.

      Now if you want to find a solution for world peace, I’m not saying that AI can’t do that. I am saying that LLMs can’t. They don’t solve problems, they model language.

      • KeenFlame
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It will mimic the reasoning, just like an intelligence would mimic, with a lot more nuance and perspective than you seem to realise. It’s just not very good at it.

        What most people that try to explain how LLMs work don’t understand, is why and how it works is not fully understood by the scientists and developers themselves. We keep discovering novel activity all the time.

        As a side note, sorry you got downvoted. I like the discussion