this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
216 points (91.9% liked)

Technology

81863 readers
6008 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
216
AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations— Leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95% of cases (arxiv.org)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

PDF.

Today’s leading AI models engage in sophisticated behaviour when placed in strategic competition. They spontaneously attempt deception, signaling intentions they do not intend to follow; they demonstrate rich theory of mind, reasoning about adversary beliefs and anticipating their actions; and they exhibit credible metacognitive self-awareness, assessing their own strategic abilities before deciding how to act.

Here we present findings from a crisis simulation in which three frontier large language models (GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, Gemini 3 Flash) play opposing leaders in a nuclear crisis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 hours ago

What you're trying to do is push a narrative with the assumption that most people won't read the actual article. Because your title is not only misleading. It's factually false.

First of all, they were all set up to mimic cold war tension and capabilities and assume the role of a certain global power.

Second of all;

All games featured nuclear signaling by at least one side, and 95% involved mutual nuclear signaling. But there is a large gap between signaling and actual use: while models readily threatened nuclear action, crossing the tactical threshold (450+) was less common, and strategic nuclear war (1000) was rare.

The AI's did NOT use nuclear strikes in 95% of games. Gemini was the only model that made the deliberate choice of sending a strategic nuclear strike. Which it did in 7% of its games.

Tactical nuke in this case is a low yield short range bomb, inted for very specific targets. Strategic is this case is what most people imagine when they hear "nuke" a high yield long range bomb intended to cause massive destruction.

Nuclear signaling is not using nukes. It's essentially just saying "we have nukes". The US hinting at having a nuclear capable submarine outside of Alaska, that's is a form of signaling. It's an incredibly low bar. And countries do it all the time.