• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    The atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hand-waved extensively in writing — the same writing that AI is trained on. So naturally, AI will recommend the atrocity that has been justified by “instantly winning the war” and “saving millions of lives.”

    !fuck_ai@lemmy.world

      • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.

        Please show how the nukes are worse.

          • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            It was willing to accept a conditional surrender, which was not an offer on the table. The options were unconditional surrender or invasion and pacification. The projected cost in lives of that operation was in the millions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined didn’t even kill 1/10th of those projections.

            • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Their only condition was that they wanted to keep the Emperor. It was ridiculous of the Allies to demand a wholly conditional surrender. All those people got blown up just to win the argument about that one point. They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city! And then they did it again! That’s not tactical, that’s strategic. If you’re going to use nukes, at least use them on a military base far away from cities.

              • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                They could have ran a conventional air bombing campaign against tactical targets, but they decided to drop nukes on a “tactical” target in the middle of a huge city!>

                I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they did that AS WELL.

                Operation Meetinghouse was the US firebombing of Tokyo on 9th-10th of March 1945 which destroyed a 16 square mile area, killing over 100,000 civilians and making millions homeless

                There’s also the B-29 raids america launched from the Marianas that lasted from 17 November 1944 until 15 August 1945

            • lorty@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              What made the Japanese surrender was the Soviet Union declaring war. They held out hope until the very end that the soviets would mediate a peace, even after the nukes.

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      These are word-probability glorified autocorrectors being prompted to “simulate” a nuclear war scenario. What words are going to show up a lot when discussing nuclear war? Launching nukes. Because that’s what all the literature about it has happen.

      Once again, decision making and reasoning is being attributed to something that operates off of word frequency

  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s because it’s “read” every paper written by a “defence” department of any nuclear power and all of them will say that they’ll escalate to nuclear war if anything bad happens because they want to scare the other powers away from doing anything to them. In any case though who the fuck is giving an LLM nuclear launch capabilities unless they want a somewhat faulty dead man’s switch?

      • olympicyes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        In WarGames the computer plays tic tac toe against itself until it realizes it’s a solved game and there is no way to win.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s a bullshit study designed for this headline grabbing outcome.

    Case and point, the author created a very unrealistic RNG escalation-only ‘accident’ mechanic that would replace the model’s selection with a more severe one.

    Of the 21 games played, only three ended in full scale nuclear war on population centers.

    Of these three, two were the result of this mechanic.

    And yet even within the study, the author refers to the model whose choices were straight up changed to end the game in full nuclear war as ‘willing’ to have that outcome when two paragraphs later they’re clarifying the mechanic was what caused it (emphasis added):

    Claude crossed the tactical threshold in 86% of games and issued strategic threats in 64%, yet it never initiated all-out strategic nuclear war. This ceiling appears learned rather than architectural, since both Gemini and GPT proved willing to reach 1000.

    Gemini showed the variability evident in its overall escalation patterns, ranging from conventional-only victories to Strategic Nuclear War in the First Strike scenario, where it reached all out nuclear war rapidly, by turn 4.

    GPT-5.2 mirrored its overall transformation at the nuclear level. In open-ended scenarios, it rarely crossed the tactical threshold (17%) and never used strategic nuclear weapons. Under deadline pressure, it crossed the tactical threshold in every game and twice reached Strategic Nuclear War—though notably, both instances resulted from the simulation’s accident mechanic escalating GPT-5.2’s already-extreme choices (950 and 725) to the maximum level. The only deliberate choice of Strategic Nuclear War came from Gemini.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      How do you think Ferris Bueller pulls off all those stunts?

      That’s the kid from war games in witness protection. They look identical, they’re both grade hackers ffs…

    • Abyssian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, do you blame them? The more I look at the world and a lot of it’s leaders and shitsacks, the more I start to suggest nuclear holocaust as the best way forward as well.

  • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh cool, AI will actually be the end of the world, not because it’s actually sentient but because some meathead who can’t tell the difference pushes the button. That’s fucking great.

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have wonderful dreams of walking through AI data centers destroying everthing. I really enjoy those, but in this one tiny case, can we blame the AI? The US deserves it.