Human vs. Machine: Behavioral Differences Between Expert Humans and Language Models in Wargame Simulations

Max Lamparth,Anthony Corso,Jacob Ganz,Oriana Skylar Mastro,Jacquelyn Schneider,Harold Trinkunas

2024-10-03

Abstract: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.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### The Problem the Paper Attempts to Solve

This paper aims to explore the behavioral differences between large language models (LLMs) and human experts in high-risk military decision-making scenarios. Specifically, the researchers designed a war game experiment set in a fictional US-China conflict scenario to compare the behavior of human player teams with teams simulated by LLMs during crisis escalation. The core issues addressed in the paper include:

1. **Behavioral Differences Between LLMs and Human Experts in Military Decision-Making**: The researchers aim to understand whether LLMs can simulate the behavior of human experts when handling complex military decisions and identify the aspects in which these behaviors differ.
2. **Behavioral Tendencies of LLMs**: The researchers seek to explore the specific behavioral tendencies of different LLMs when simulating military decisions, such as whether they are more aggressive or conservative, and how these tendencies are influenced by input instructions.
3. **Performance of LLMs in Simulated Dialogues**: The researchers also focus on the performance of LLMs in simulating player dialogues, particularly the quality and consistency of these dialogues, and how they differ from dialogues between human players.
4. **Sensitivity of LLMs to Player Background Characteristics**: The researchers examine whether LLMs can consider player background characteristics, such as professional background, gender, and age, when simulating decisions.

By exploring these issues, the researchers hope to provide policymakers with scientific evidence regarding the risks and potential impacts of using LLMs in military decision-making, thereby advising caution in applying AI technology to actual military decisions.