Came here to say this. Turns out real life WOPR is nothing like a movie.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
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.”
hand-waved
I think you mean white-washed, misrepresented, and celebrated.
Same thing with extra steps
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.
Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41144264/
Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Health Impacts of Hiroshima Bombing
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/bennett1/
Long-term Health Consequences of Nuclear Weapons
70 Years on Red Cross Hospitals still treat Thousands of Atomic Bomb SurvivorsUnfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!
5/10
And your sources are? Where? Your ass?
My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.
Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?
You can also look it up. It’s not anyone’s job to compare things for you.
DEFCON: Everybody dies…
Such a great game!
Back when I was a single man, and lived on my own, I had a HD projector. I filled most of my living room wall with this game. Good times
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?
Pete Hegseth and Donald Epstein
deleted by creator
Civilization Gandhi, is that you?
They forgot to make their LLMs play thousands of games of tic-tac-toe first.
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.
So do I on Civ…
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.
I too am tired of the United States playing too many stupid games and not winning enough stupid prizes.
Same.
Pretty sure the “prize” is a government of pedos.
I have wonderful dreams of walking through AI data centers destroying everthing.
No you don’t.
You watch my dreams and can attest to this? I HAVE MANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
It was just an educated guess.
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT BRUNETTE I BEG YOU
Maybe but sure as hell the rest of the world doesn’t.
More than fair. I should remember that my perspective is completely effed before I make jokes like that one.
De-bullshitting that headline:
AIsProgrammers can’t stop their programs recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulationsAnd yeah that’s what happens inside a genocidal empire where “R&D” is strictly funded by the MIC.
Three posts away in my feed, a thread about the Pentagon demanding the AI provider for the military to remove safeguards.
Did we not learn from Sarah and John Connor long ago?
It’s torment nexuses all the way down…
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.
Anyone who has played video games, especially where there is a somewhat steep learning curve or some element of past choices carrying forward thru the game, has had the moment where they realize it might be time to start fresh with the info I’ve acquired. It’s not a shock to me that these AI entertain the nuclear option so often.
