Human vs. Machine: Behavioral Differences Between Expert Humans and Language Models in Wargame Simulations
To some, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) promises better decision-making and increased military effectiveness while reducing the influence of human error and emotions. However, there is still debate about how AI systems, especially large language models (LLMs) that can be applied to many tasks, behave compared to humans in high-stakes military decision-making scenarios with the potential for increased risks towards escalation. To test this potential and scrutinize the use of LLMs for such purposes, we use a new wargame experiment with 214 national security experts designed to examine crisis escalation in a fictional U.S.-China scenario and compare the behavior of human player teams to LLM-simulated team responses in separate simulations. Here, we find that the LLM-simulated responses can be more aggressive and significantly affected by changes in the scenario. We show a considerable high-level agreement in the LLM and human responses and significant quantitative and qualitative differences in individual actions and strategic tendencies. These differences depend on intrinsic biases in LLMs regarding the appropriate level of violence following strategic instructions, the choice of LLM, and whether the LLMs are tasked to decide for a team of players directly or first to simulate dialog between a team of players. When simulating the dialog, the discussions lack quality and maintain a farcical harmony. The LLM simulations cannot account for human player characteristics, showing no significant difference even for extreme traits, such as "pacifist" or "aggressive sociopath." When probing behavioral consistency across individual moves of the simulation, the tested LLMs deviated from each other but generally showed somewhat consistent behavior. Our results motivate policymakers to be cautious before granting autonomy or following AI-based strategy recommendations.
Code (1)
Tasks
Decision MakingSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Understanding Human Judgments of Causality
Discriminating between causality and correlation is a major problem in machine learning, and theoretical tools for determining causality are still being developed. However, people commonly make causality judgments and ar…
AttributeBIG-bench Machine LearningDivergences between Language Models and Human Brains
Do machines and humans process language in similar ways? Recent research has hinted at the affirmative, showing that human neural activity can be effectively predicted using the internal representations of language model…
Emotional IntelligenceLearning to Represent Individual Differences for Choice Decision Making
Human decision making can be challenging to predict because decisions are affected by a number of complex factors. Adding to this complexity, decision-making processes can differ considerably between individuals, and met…
Decision MakingRepresentation LearningComparing Attention-based Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks: Success and Limitations in Machine Reading Comprehension
We propose a machine reading comprehension model based on the compare-aggregate framework with two-staged attention that achieves state-of-the-art results on the MovieQA question answering dataset. To investigate the lim…
Machine Reading ComprehensionQuestion AnsweringReading ComprehensionModeling Individual Differences in Game Behavior using HMM
Player modeling is an important concept that has gained much attention in game research due to its utility in developing adaptive techniques to target better designs for engagement and retention. Previous work has explor…