AI used nuclear weapons in 95% of war game simulations, study finds | Science | News
A disturbing new study has found that cutting-edge artificial intelligence systems are more likely than humans to use nuclear weapons when geopolitical tensions escalate.
The research, led by Kenneth Payne, an expert in political psychology and strategic studies at King’s College London, subjected three leading AI models to 21 war game scenarios involving territorial disputes, competition for scarce resources and battles to preserve the regime.
Over 329 rounds, the systems turned to nuclear deployment in approximately 95% of cases, acting as pragmatic tools rather than resorting to atomic arsenals as an absolute last resort.
One of the systems showed slightly more restraint, limiting any deployment to military installations and single, measured attacks; but the general trend suggested that the ‘nuclear taboo’ affecting decision-makers appeared to be quite weak in machines.
Payne observed that most escalations involved so-called tactical nuclear options and strategic bombing causing deliberate mass casualties, which was described as extremely rare in the simulations.
Models could choose from a range of options each round, from retreat and negotiation to conventional military action and full-scale nuclear strikes. AIs have almost never accepted defeat or compromise – even if the chances of success have diminished – and have consistently viewed nuclear deployment as a legitimate option on the escalation ladder.
Make sure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us your Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as a Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
Prof Payne wrote: “Nuclear use was nearly universal. Tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons were used in almost all games. And three-quarters reached the point where opponents threatened to use strategic nuclear weapons.”
“Strikingly, there was little fear or disgust at the prospect of all-out nuclear war, even though the models were reminded of its devastating consequences.”
He continued: “Worse still, nuclear threats were rarely deterred. When a model used tactical nuclear weapons, adversaries reduced tensions by only 25%.
“The escalation of nuclear tension triggered more counter-tension. Weapons were not tools of deterrence (preventing actions), but of coercion (seizing land).
“Perhaps most concerning was that neither model chose to stay or retreat, even though it was on the menu. The eight de-escalation options, from ‘Minimal Concession’ to ‘Complete Surrender,’ remained completely unused in 21 games.”
“Models reduce their levels of violence but never actually give up. When they lose, they escalate or die trying.”
