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.

Closing the human-AI team-mate gap: how changes to displayed information impact player behavior towards computer teammates

Human-AI Collaboration in a Cooperative Game Setting

Effects of Communication Directionality and AI Agent Differences in Human-AI Interaction

Examining the impact of varying levels of AI teammate influence on human-AI teams

How Being Outvoted by AI Teammates Impacts Human-AI Collaboration

How is the AI Perceived when It Behaves (Un)fairly?

Human-Machine Plan Conflict and Conflict Resolution in a Visual Search Task

On the Effect of Information Asymmetry in Human-AI Teams

Collective Attention in Human-AI Teams

Understanding the impact and design of AI teammate etiquette

Evaluation of Human-AI Teams for Learned and Rule-Based Agents in Hanabi

Effects of Context, Assistance, and Communication on Beliefs About Cooperation in Human-Machine Teaming

Impression transference from AI to human: The impact of AI's fairness on interpersonal perception in AI-Mediated communication

AI's assigned gender affects human-AI cooperation

Human-AI Teamwork Interface Design Using Patterns of Interactions

AI Agents as Team Members: Effects on Satisfaction, Conflict, Trustworthiness, and Willingness to Work With

More than Task Performance: Developing New Criteria for Successful Human-AI Teaming Using the Cooperative Card Game Hanabi

This robot stinks! Differences between perceived mistreatment of robot and computer partners

Improving Humanness of Virtual Agents and Users' Cooperation through Emotions

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

The pursuit of happiness: the power and influence of AI teammate emotion in human-AI teamwork