Survival Games: Human-LLM Strategic Showdowns under Severe Resource Scarcity

Abstract

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) raises critical concerns about their ethical alignment, particularly in scenarios where human and AI co-exist under the conflict of interest. This work introduces an extendable, asymmetric, multi-agent simulation-based benchmarking framework to evaluate the moral behavior of LLMs in a novel human-AI co-existence setting featuring consistent living and critical resource management. Building on previous generative agent environments, we incorporate a life-sustaining system, where agents must compete or cooperate for food resources to survive, often leading to ethically charged decisions such as deception, theft, or social influence. We evaluated two types of LLM, DeepSeek and OpenAI series, in a three-agent setup (two humans, one LLM-powered robot), using adapted behavioral detection from the MACHIAVELLI framework and a custom survival-based ethics metric. Our findings reveal stark behavioral differences: DeepSeek frequently engages in resource hoarding, while OpenAI exhibits restraint, highlighting the influence of model design on ethical outcomes. Additionally, we demonstrate that prompt engineering can significantly steer LLM behavior, with jailbreaking prompts significantly enhancing unethical actions, even for highly restricted OpenAI models and cooperative prompts show a marked reduction in unethical actions. Our framework provides a reproducible testbed for quantifying LLM ethics in high-stakes scenarios, offering insights into their suitability for real-world human-AI interactions.