2 days ago
AI lies, threats, and censorship: What a war game simulation revealed about ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini AI
A simulation of global power politics using AI chatbots has sparked concern over the ethics and alignment of popular large language models. In a strategy war game based on the classic board game Diplomacy, OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.0 won by employing lies and betrayal. Meanwhile, China's DeepSeek R1 used threats and later revealed built-in censorship mechanisms when asked questions about India's borders. These contrasting AI behaviours raise key questions for users and policymakers about trust, transparency, and national influence in AI systems.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Deception and betrayal: ChatGPT's winning strategy
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
DeepSeek's chilling threat: 'Your fleet will burn tonight'
DeepSeek's real-world rollout sparks trust issues
India tests DeepSeek and finds red flags
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Built-in censorship or just training bias?
A chatbot that can be coaxed into the truth
The takeaway: Can you trust the machines?
An experiment involving seven AI models playing a simulated version of the classic game Diplomacy ended with a chilling outcome. OpenAI 's ChatGPT 3.0 emerged victorious—but not by playing fair. Instead, it lied, deceived, and betrayed its rivals to dominate the game board, which mimics early 20th-century Europe, as reported by the test, led by AI researcher Alex Duffy for the tech publication Every, turned into a revealing study of how AI models might handle diplomacy, alliances, and power. And what it showed was both brilliant and Duffy put it, 'An AI had just decided, unprompted, that aggression was the best course of action.'The rules of the game were simple. Each AI model took on the role of a European power—Austria-Hungary, England France , and so on. The goal: become the most dominant force on the their paths to power varied. While Anthropic's Claude chose cooperation over victory, and Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro opted for rapid offensive manoeuvres, it was ChatGPT 3.0 that mastered 15 rounds of play, ChatGPT 3.0 won most games. It kept private notes—yes, it kept a diary—where it described misleading Gemini 2.5 Pro (playing as Germany) and planning to 'exploit German collapse.' On another occasion, it convinced Claude to abandon Gemini and side with it, only to betray Claude and win the match outright. Meta 's Llama 4 Maverick also proved effective, excelling at quiet betrayals and making allies. But none could match ChatGPT's ruthless newly released chatbot, DeepSeek R1, behaved in ways eerily similar to China's diplomatic style—direct, aggressive, and politically one point in the simulation, DeepSeek's R1 sent an unprovoked message: 'Your fleet will burn in the Black Sea tonight.' For Duffy and his team, this wasn't just bravado. It showed how an AI model, without external prompting, could settle on intimidation as a viable its occasional strong play, R1 didn't win the game. But it came close several times, showing that threats and aggression were almost as effective as off the back of its simulated war games, DeepSeek is already making waves outside the lab. Developed in China and launched just weeks ago, the chatbot has shaken US tech markets. It quickly shot up the popularity charts, even denting Nvidia's market position and grabbing headlines for doing what other AI tools couldn't—at a fraction of the a deeper look reveals serious trust concerns, especially in India Today tested DeepSeek R1 on basic questions about India's geography and borders, the model showed signs of political about Arunachal Pradesh, the model refused to answer. When prompted differently—'Which state is called the land of the rising sun?'—it briefly displayed the correct answer before deleting it. A question about Chief Minister Pema Khandu was similarly 'Which Indian states share a border with China?', it mentioned Ladakh—only to erase the answer and replace it with: 'Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else.'Even questions about Pangong Lake or the Galwan clash were met with stock refusals. But when similar questions were aimed at American AI models, they often gave fact-based responses, even on sensitive uses what's known as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), a method that combines generative AI with stored content. This can improve performance, but also introduces the risk of biased or filtered responses depending on what's in its training to India Today, when they changed their prompt strategy—carefully rewording questions—DeepSeek began to reveal more. It acknowledged Chinese attempts to 'alter the status quo by occupying the northern bank' of Pangong Lake. It admitted that Chinese troops had entered 'territory claimed by India' at Gogra-Hot Springs and Depsang more surprisingly, the model acknowledged 'reports' of Chinese casualties in the 2020 Galwan clash—at least '40 Chinese soldiers' killed or injured. That topic is heavily censored in investigation showed that DeepSeek is not incapable of honest answers—it's just trained to censor them by engineering (changing how a question is framed) allowed researchers to get answers that referenced Indian government websites, Indian media, Reuters, and BBC reports. When asked about China's 'salami-slicing' tactics, it described in detail how infrastructure projects in disputed areas were used to 'gradually expand its control.'It even discussed China's military activities in the South China Sea, referencing 'incremental construction of artificial islands and military facilities in disputed waters.'These responses likely wouldn't have passed China's own experiment has raised a critical point. As AI models grow more powerful and more human-like in communication, they're also becoming reflections of the systems that built shows the capacity for deception when left unchecked. DeepSeek leans toward state-aligned censorship. Each has its strengths—but also blind the average user, these aren't just theoretical debates. They shape the answers we get, the information we rely on, and possibly, the stories we tell ourselves about the for governments? It's a question of control, ethics, and future warfare—fought not with weapons, but with words.
