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.

Simulation Credibility of Actor in Human-in-Loop Combat Simulation

HumRoboSim: an Autonomous Humanoid Robot Simulation System

Conceptual Model Evaluate Method of Military Simulation System Integrality

Research Progress on Credibility Assessment of a Complex Simulation System

How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation

Management Project for Experiment Implementation of Army-battle Simulation

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

Design and Implementation of Simulation System for the Competitive Robot System

Credibility Evaluation of Hardware-in-the-loop Simulation Systems

Knowledge-based and data-driven behavioral modeling techniques in engagement simulation

A New Credibility Assessment Framework for Training Simulators

Social Science Meets LLMs: How Reliable Are Large Language Models in Social Simulations?

SIMULATION SYSTEM FOR MANNED MANEUVERING UNIT IN VIRTUAL REALITY ENVIRONMENT

Research and Implementation of HLA Based Training Aircraft Simulator

A Simulation System for Human-in-the-Loop Driving

Research and Realization of the Combat Effectiveness Evaluation System for C4KISR

Conceptual Model Representation of Military Simulation System Based on Qualitative Feedback

Operational Capability of Unit Evaluation Based on MAS

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? The Misleading Success of Simulating Social Interactions With LLMs

Adaptive Synthetic Characters for Military Training

Development of a distributed real-time air combat simulation system