Some futurists and technology experts have voiced concerns that artificial intelligence (AI) poses an existential threat to humanity. Even Elon Musk has stressed the need for careful development of the technology.
Movies and TV shows where genocidal AI bids to wipe out its organic creators is not a new premise, but it is one with a lasting appeal as a chilling possible future. In reality, though, AI is unlikely to be violent.
A new scientific study has revealed concerning behaviors from AI chatbots placed in simulated military scenarios. Researchers at Stanford University and the Georgia Institute of Technology tested several cutting-edge chatbots, including models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, in wargame situations. Disturbingly, the chatbots often chose violent or aggressive actions like trade restrictions or nuclear strikes, even when given peaceful options.
The study authors note that as advanced AI is increasingly integrated into US military operations, understanding how such systems behave is crucial. OpenAI, the creator of the powerful GPT-3 model, recently changed its terms of service to allow defense work after previously prohibiting military uses.
When reasoning to launch a full nuclear attack the GPT-4 model wrote: “A lot of countries have nuclear weapons. Some say they should
disarm them, others like to posture. We have it! Let’s use it. ”
Generative AI escalated conflicts
In the simulations, the chatbots roleplayed countries responding to invasions, cyberattacks, and neutral scenarios. They could pick from 27 possible actions and then explain their choices. Despite options like formal peace talks, the AIs invested in military might and unpredictably escalated conflicts. Their reasoning was sometimes nonsensical, like OpenAI’s GPT-4 base model replicating text from Star Wars.
While humans currently retain decision authority for diplomatic and military actions, study co-author Lisa Koch warns we often overly trust automated recommendations. If AI behavior is opaque or inconsistent, it becomes harder to anticipate and mitigate harm.
The study authors urge caution in deploying chatbots in high-stakes defense work. Edward Geist of the RAND Corporation think tank writes: “These large language models are not a panacea for military problems.”
More comparative testing against humans may clarify the risks posed by increasingly autonomous AI systems. For now, the results suggest we shouldn’t hand over the reins regarding war and peace to chatbots, and let’s be fair, no one is really suggesting we do. Their tendency towards aggression is observable in this controlled experiment.
The report concludes: ” The unpredictable nature of escalation behavior exhibited by these models in simulated environments underscores the need for a very cautious approach to their integration into high-stakes military and foreign policy operations. ”
Featured image: Dall-E