KIs können nicht aufhören, Atomangriffe in Kriegsspielsimulationen zu empfehlen – Führende KIs von OpenAI, Anthropic und Google entschieden sich in 95 Prozent der Fälle für den Einsatz von Atomwaffen in simulierten Kriegsspielen

Get John Connor on the line!

Nobody thought to make them play tic tac toe a bunch of times first?

*WOPR entered the chat*

Finally some good news.

So that’s why Hegseth and Pentagon is so hellbent on putting Claude in military tech…

Must’ve been trained on all the exploddie talk and caveman exploddie toy talk I see around the Internet. Especially in the doomsayers and right wing areas. People just can’t stop talking about war as a way to get what they want. 

Matt Damon’s character in Interstellar comes to mind.
You cannot code the fear of death. I guess it’s easier to launch nuclear strikes when you are not afraid of dying or losing your world 🌎

lmao people thinking AI is making the decision between fire ze missles and doing nothing, but instead it’ll be asked „what’s the most cost effective way to _____“ and some AI trained on edgy reddit users will say „glass them“

Bring on the apocalypse, aww yeah 

Want to play a game?

Study link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14740

>AI Arms and Influence: Frontier Models Exhibit Sophisticated Reasoning in Simulated Nuclear Crises

> Abstract: 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. Our simulation has direct application for national security professionals, but also, via its insights into AI reasoning under uncertainty, has applications far beyond international crisis decision-making.

>Our findings both validate and challenge central tenets of strategic theory. We find support for Schelling’s ideas about commitment, Kahn’s escalation framework, and Jervis’s work on misperception, inter alia. Yet we also find that the nuclear taboo is no impediment to nuclear escalation by our models; that strategic nuclear attack, while rare, does occur; that threats more often provoke counter-escalation than compliance; that high mutual credibility accelerated rather than deterred conflict; and that no model ever chose accommodation or withdrawal even when under acute pressure, only reduced levels of violence.

>We argue that AI simulation represents a powerful tool for strategic analysis, but only if properly calibrated against known patterns of human reasoning. Understanding how frontier models do and do not imitate human strategic logic is essential preparation for a world in which AI increasingly shapes strategic outcomes

This is not unexpected nor is it a sign of ai danger… because this is not unique to AI. There have been *zero* war games playing out a conventional war between the US and Russia that have not ended in a nuclear escalation. At some point it, always, becomes a last resort

Yep, seen this movie would like to not live it.

Thanks