Hide table of contents

We’re developing an AI-enabled wargaming-tool, grim, to significantly scale up the number of catastrophic scenarios that concerned organizations can explore and to improve emergency response capabilities of, at least, Sentinel.

Table of Contents

  1. How AI Improves on the State of the Art
  2. Implementation Details, Limitations, and Improvements
  3. Learnings So Far
  4. Get Involved!

How AI Improves on the State of the Art

In a wargame, a group dives deep into a specific scenario in the hopes of understanding the dynamics of a complex system and understanding weaknesses in responding to hazards in the system. Reality has a surprising amount of detail, so thinking abstractly about the general shapes of issues is insufficient. However, wargames are quite resource intensive to run precisely because they require detail and coordination.

Eli Lifland shared with us some limitations about the exercises his team has run, like at The Curve conference:

  1. It took about a month of total person-hours to iterate of iterating on the rules, printouts, etc.
  2. They don’t have experts to play important roles like the Chinese government and occasionally don’t have experts to play technical roles or the US government.
  3. Players forget about important possibilities or don’t know what actions would be reasonable.
  4. There are a bunch of background variables which would be nice to keep track of more systematically, such as what the best publicly deployed AIs from each company are, how big private deployments are and for what purpose they are deployed, compute usage at each AGI project, etc. For simplicity, at the moment they only make a graph of best internal AI at each project (and rogue AIs if they exist).
  5. It's effortful for them to vary things like the starting situation of the game, distribution of alignment outcomes, takeoff speeds, etc.

AI can significantly improve on all the limitations above, such that more people can go through more scenarios faster at the same quality. One can also prompt AIs for stranger scenarios much more easily than one can people. At the end of the day, AI will still be probing a space with priors, but people have more rigid priors and get tired during sampling.

In line with Sentinel’s thesis that we are collectively underappreciating unknown-unknowns and their interactions, running 5-100x more serious wargames in a wider range of scenarios means that many more chances to find buried grains of truth to coordinate around.

Implementation Details, Limitations, and Improvements

grim is a telegram bot. This has the advantage that all a new user has to do is join a chat.

Example of scenario setup, action submission, results.

There are three ways of interacting with the bot:

  • ACTION - Taking actions in the world. These advance the game clock, and have some chance of success/failure.
  • INFO - Asking it for info about the world you think you would already know in that scenario.
  • FEED - Feeding it info you would like to be assumed true within the scenario.

On the backend, the output of the bot is the result of a pipeline of

  1. “Forecaster” LLM calls that generate outcomes of actions and sample from them

    The Forecaster LLM generating outcomes and their respective weights for Nuño’s research action.
  2. a “Game Master” LLM whose job it is to weave things into a narrative.

We’re constantly finding ways to improve the usefulness of the tool. A good next step could be to build Eli’s suggestion of including expert agents to increase the realism of key live-players or important institutions.

Some Learnings So Far

  1. There are benefits to increasing the number of people who will take action in a crisis besides the obvious of increasing effort applied to the problem. People take different actions early in the game and that’s good for finding low-hanging fruit and unusually effective interventions. I—Rai—like to understand what influential players like billionaires, heads of state, and their influencers are saying so I can think about what’s likely to get left behind or get made worse by their efforts. Nuño likes the action of tweeting out a warning early and trying to build a group around the issue. When we had guests participate in early rounds, sometimes they were one hop away from people who were uncontactable by us on short notice in practice. One participant in a bio exercise tried to reach out to their contacts at WHO, CEPI, Gates Foundation to weigh in on the state of a growing outbreak.
  2. Preparing yourself and your loved ones for emergencies beforehand broadly allows you to be a live player more quickly and sanely. Since we played as ourselves during these scenarios, often the first thing we did was make sure we and our loved ones were physically safe. If you were at all hoping to be a live player during crises, we think taking basic precautions sooner rather than later would be a great idea. Get yourself and your loved ones
    1. Shelter-in-place capacity
      1. Shelf-stable food and water
      2. Personal protective equipment for biological threats
    2. Mobilization capacity
      1. A “go bag” with supplies
      2. Predetermined destinations and meeting points
    3. Financial resilience
      1. A preference for more liquid assets in general and having some cash in particular.
      2. Predetermined financial strategies so that you spend crucial moments acting on the world rather than trying to act on financial markets. Our preferred strategy right now is to place a bet on out-of-the-money VXX calls. We’re not finance experts so we welcome critiques here if you have a better idea of what is a low-maintenance, easily-accessible position that could be put on in a wide variety of lead-ins to crisis.
  3. In several types of catastrophes and significant events, like a regime change in Bangladesh or in Syria, we can be impotent to influence events since we lack many of the necessary preparations for effective actions.
  4. Many events will remain contained to local and regional events, and indeed this is the most likely outcome. But when thinking about expected value, the question is less “what will happen?” and more “how could this escalate?”.
  5. Information and dashboards, like this bird flu risk dashboard are cheap types of scalable and permissionless interventions.
  6. Communication could become fraught, especially in scenarios with high AI capabilities, AI persuasion and network infrastructure fragility might make communication much harder.
    1. Permissionless analog systems like amateur radio require delicate reflection off oft-shifting atmospheric effects to reach targets past line-of-sight. Transmitting on frequencies that pass through the earth is more unwieldy in terms of power and antenna setup and are also de jure off-limits to civilians. In some emergencies there may be few with the capacity to enforce this ban, however.
    2. Uncorrelated networking stacks could be very useful if sufficient trunks of the physical layer of the internet are intact. Much like how AI benchmarks retain secret questions so as not to contaminate training runs, an unpublished operating system and networking stack could be very useful in a rogue AI scenario. To that end we’ve briefly discussed the notion of “SentinelOS” which would focus on communication, coordination, and continuity of humanity. We’re not sure how much to invest in the idea but if you have thoughts on this or think you’d be the right person to contribute to the design/implementation of this artifact, please reach out.

Get Involved!

If you are working in the GCR space, we'd love if you reached out at hello@sentinel-team.org with expressions of interest for participating in a wargame with Sentinel, running a wargame for a scenario and players of your choosing, or interest in contributing to our repository. If you’re involved in emergency response in particular, it’d be great to be able to stress test your responses.

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Executive summary: The development of the AI-enabled wargaming tool, grim, aims to enhance global catastrophic risk management by scaling the number of scenarios organizations can explore and improving emergency response strategies.

Key points:

  1. Grim utilizes AI to address the limitations of traditional wargaming, allowing more scenarios to be processed more quickly with improved detail and coordination.
  2. The tool, implemented as a telegram bot, facilitates user interaction through actions, information requests, and scenario-specific data inputs.
  3. Key improvements include potential integration of expert agents to enhance realism in scenario responses.
  4. grim's development reflects a broader effort to appreciate and prepare for "unknown-unknowns" in global crises.
  5. Preparatory recommendations for individuals include enhancing personal safety, mobilization readiness, and financial resilience to become effective live players during crises.
  6. Ongoing enhancements of the tool are informed by lessons learned from early user interactions and scenario trials.

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f