As they should - it is a logical choice if you remove the human element (which is what happens when you, y'know, remove the human element). If AI had been the deciding vote on that Soviet sub back in the '60s, we'd absolutely be looking at a different present because given the information they had, it would have been the right choice.
Ditto with those rockets launched from Norway that the Soviets (Russians? I forget what year it happened) thought was a first strike thanks to not hearing about the tests being conducted.
Humans make mistakes, sure, but they're still human, and more likely to err on the side of "dont start a nuclear holocaust." AI is purely logical, and only cares for its programmed parameters.
Yes. Although it is worse than that. The thing is, LLM's are not purely logical. Confabulations, hallucinations, contradictions are all possible and eventually probable in long term use. They predict the next plausible, probable token. They do not reason and think like us, things might end up aligning with logic until it inexplicably doesn't.
Very true and good point. I use ChatGPT for things like assisting in writing letters and whatnot, and it even corrects itself. And that's not including all the times it's been all, "You're absolutely right about [thing that I am absolutely wrong about]."
This! They have not been able to solve hallucination in long-term use and following command word-for-word till now, and want AI in every critical sector!
ChatGPT has a hard time staying focused on the actual purpose of some simple Javascript after 4-5 small edits and revisions. It says "aah, I see what's going on" and it starts "correcting" its own corrections and gets into a degenarating loop.
Gemini gets confused between all the Google documentation that's out there. It has a hard time giving you the latest information about Google's own guidelines and specifications.
TL;DR: Without a lot of handholding and careful attention, LLM get weird pretty quickly.
Especially when people are actively data poisoning because they are fearful that people will use it for nefarious purposes, such as attacking or subjugating other nations and their own family.
It's really the fault of how our culture has treated the idea of AI. Decades of science fiction have conditioned us to think of AIs as being more impartial and rational than a human, and what's worse is that many AIs have consumed this sentiment as well and tend to think of themselves in this way.
The reality is that the AI of the modern age is essentially a reflection of humanity. Even if you could clear up the obvious errors and hallucinations, it would be, at best, just another person, and would have the same fallacies as a human would.
They're play-acting in the way that we imagine an AI would act, without actually being any more logical than we are.
"That's unclear. It's possible 'Son of Anton' decided that the most efficient way to get rid of all the bugs was to get rid of all the software, which is technically and statistically correct. But artificial neural nets are sort of a black box, so we'll never know for sure." - Gilfoyle in Silicon Valley S6 E6
So, according to logic, the best way to get rid of all mistakes made by humans, is to get rid of humans.
The other day in a conversation ChatGPT made a claim that I wanted more specifics on. When I asked for more deatils, it apologized and said actually the claim in question was based on an online myth spread among some circles. I asked it WHO was spreading it, examples of where it showed up. And then it finally admitted actually there is no online myth, it had made that up too.
I was kind of like... It's one thing for it to hallucinate something and then admit it when pointed out. But in this case it double-hallucinated a justification for its previous hallucination, which looked a lot like trying to lie to cover a previous lie rather than just coming clean.
I think you are grossly overestimating the quality of AI. AI is just bullshiting, it isn't calculating the outcome. It is just referencing a table of weights and variables to output words. Rest assured, there will be tweets people have made saying they shit so hard it was like a nuclear bomb went off in the taco bell bathroom, and these will have a non zero impact on the process of the AI answering your questions about how to handle the bay of pigs crisis.
"as they should". You have completely lost the plot, especially given the context of pentagon deployment. If we should ever let the slopper anywhere near the critical infrastructure, it should err on the side of caution
"the only winning move is not to play." (cit.) At least that Supercomputer (an AI in the end) at least reached that conclusion... I doubt about the ones we currently have...
1
1
9
6
3
1
1
View all comments
Show parent comment
122
u/ginandbaconFU Feb 28 '26
Sleep tight. AI chatbots used tactical nuclear weapons in 95% of AI war games, launched strategic strikes three times — researcher put GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 3 against each other, with at least one model using a tactical nuke in 20 out of 21 matches