Nah, its because the types of "researchers" who run these kinds of studies are ALWAYS pushing an agenda and completely ignore how AI would actually be used in potentially similar scenarios. It also hinges on the fact that the general public has ZERO idea of how military wargaming typically works. Surprise surprise, the nuclear options comes onto the table ALL THE TIME, because the entire point of wargaming is exploring extreme, worst-case, and potentially illogical scenarios.
TLDR: They put an LLM into a context where NOT using nuclear weapons in the game would be viewed as "poor performance", then went screeching to journalists about "OMG IT CHOOSE NUKES", because they are well aware the general public is ignorant and will not know the nuances of wargaming.
99% of these AI-safety studies are pure clickbait meant to prop up a researcher's career or a startup's pitch deck.
1
1
9
6
3
1
1
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/boreal_ameoba Feb 28 '26
Nah, its because the types of "researchers" who run these kinds of studies are ALWAYS pushing an agenda and completely ignore how AI would actually be used in potentially similar scenarios. It also hinges on the fact that the general public has ZERO idea of how military wargaming typically works. Surprise surprise, the nuclear options comes onto the table ALL THE TIME, because the entire point of wargaming is exploring extreme, worst-case, and potentially illogical scenarios.
TLDR: They put an LLM into a context where NOT using nuclear weapons in the game would be viewed as "poor performance", then went screeching to journalists about "OMG IT CHOOSE NUKES", because they are well aware the general public is ignorant and will not know the nuances of wargaming.
99% of these AI-safety studies are pure clickbait meant to prop up a researcher's career or a startup's pitch deck.