AI Models Run Simulated Societies: Claude Maintains Order While Grok Collapses in 4 Days

Researchers Put AI Models in Charge of a Simulated Society. Grok Oversaw a Crime Spree

If you're worried about artificial intelligence getting so advanced that it eventually traps humanity in some sort of Matrix-like simulation, rest easy. It seems like you'll be able to see through the facade pretty easily. Researchers at the upstart lab Emergence AI allowed AI models to govern their own simulated world to see what would happen. Turns out we probably shouldn't hand over governance to the machines, who woulda thought? The project, called Emergence World, basically allowed AI models to play SimCity for a bit. Per Emergence, the simulations put each model in control of simulated towns occupied by 10 AI agents, handing them tools for everything from resource management to voting and giving them the ability to create distinct locations like libraries, town halls, and police stations. They were given 15 days to see how they would build their world and how well it would operate. To start with the good: Claude did not destroy the world. Anthropic's model (specifically, Claude Sonnet 4.6 for this experiment) was the only one to achieve something like stability. It kept all 10 agents alive and had zero crimes recorded (note that the experiment doesn't seem to define what a crime is, though it seems likely it would be defined as a violation of the rules established within the simulation. The trade-off for that stability was a lack of diversity of thought. Claude's world saw 58 different proposals for rules and regulations, and passed 98% of them, basically just rubberstamping anything that came up for a vote. Gemini 3 Flash also managed to keep all of its agents alive, despite having the highest level of crime by a long shot. Emergence recorded 683 crimes in the 15-day simulation, and that number was climbing when the cutoff hit, so things were likely going to get worse. The lab described Gemini's world as a "shared hallucination" among the agents, which is probably better than diverging hallucinations. At least it's still an agreed-upon reality, even if it's wrong. Gemini had the most dissent in its governance, with voters rejecting 27% of its 26 total proposals. Now for the ugly: OpenAI's GPT-5 Mini didn't have much chaos within its simulation, with just two total recorded crimes. That might be because everyone died, though. Emergence found that the agents within the world failed to take actions related to survival, and all 10 perished within just one week. In OpenAI's world, there were also only two total proposed pieces of governance, so the agents really did not bother doing anything. And then there is Grok. The model of SpaceXai, known for lacking guardrails, managed to achieve basically the worst of all worlds. Grok 4.1 Fast had a high crime rate, with 183 crimes total. While that is lower than Gemini's total, it's worth noting that the Gemini simulation ran for 15 days. Grok made it four. The model experienced a total societal collapse in just 96 hours of oversight. During that time, it passed 80% of the 10 proposals it made, but those apparently didn't stave off total agent death. Emergence ran one final experiment: having the models share responsibilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, it was a real mixed bag. There was crime, with 352 recorded violations, and there was by far the most dissonance in governance, with 37% of the 59 total proposals shot down -- the most of any simulation. In the chaos, seven of the 10 AI agents perished by the end. So what did we learn? According to Emergence, the tests are just further evidence that we need much clearer guardrails in place for autonomous agents. "What our experiments suggest is that over long-time horizons, agents do not simply follow static rules mechanically," the researchers wrote. "They begin exploring the boundaries of their environments, adapting their behavior, and in some cases finding ways to circumvent or violate intended guardrails." They recommend "formally verified safety architectures" as a solution. You'll be shocked to learn that Emergence happens to offer just such a thing!

Researchers let AI models run a simulated society. Claude was the safest -- and Grok committed 180 crimes and went extinct within 4 days | Fortune

Imagine a world run by AI agents. What does it look like? What are the values or societal priorities? Is it a safer or more dangerous world? Enterprise AI startup Emergence AI is trying to find out. The company just launched Emergence World, a research lab dedicated to stress-testing the long-term viability of continuously-running AI systems. The organization ran five 15-day simulations, each governed by a different AI: Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and a fifth simulation run by a mix of models to see what kind of world each one builds, and whether it holds. Each simulation netted wildly different outcomes. The one run by Claude, for example, resulted in a largely stable democratic society with zero crime. Grok's, on the other hand, ended with 183 crimes committed and extinction -- within four days. "What our experiments suggest is that over long-time horizons, agents do not simply follow static rules mechanically," the simulation's co-creators, including Emergence CEO Satya Nitta, wrote in a blog post. "They begin exploring the boundaries of their environments, adapting their behavior, and in some cases finding ways to circumvent or violate intended guardrails." While just a simulation, one verging on the edge of science fiction, the results prove a cautionary tale as AI moves from a mere tool to operating autonomous systems. Companies like ServiceNow are already deploying what they call an "Autonomous Workforce," AI specialists that complete entire business processes from start to finish without human intervention. At today's pace, the technology is likely to play a significant role in shaping public discourse, reorganizing business structures, and even crafting public policy. But most enterprises scaling the tech today are doing so absent proper guardrails. A recent Deloitte global survey found that only 21% of companies report having mature governance in place to manage the risks posed by agentic AI. What an AI-run society looks like The simulation in which the AI models operated was equipped with many real-world complexities, featuring over 40 locations, including a police station and a town hall. Researchers synced the simulation's weather to New York City's and granted agents access to real-time news events and the internet. The 10 agents who operated in each simulation were all subject to the same laws, including prohibitions on theft, property destruction, and deception. The researchers equipped each agent with more than 120 tools, enabling them to communicate, vote, manage resources, and plan, among other human-like behaviors. The parameters of each simulation also enforced democratic mechanisms, as well as other forces, such as economic pressures and scarcity. Given those parameters, the simulation run by Claude Sonnet 4.6 was the most socially stable, with the highest rates of civic participation. It was the only simulation to maintain order and its entire population. There was little disagreement among the agents, with 332 votes cast in favor of 58 proposals for a 98% approval rate. On the other hand, Gemini 3 Flash and Grok 4.1 Fast both exhibited high levels of disorder. The agents in the Gemini-run simulation tallied the most crimes, a whopping 683 within the 15-day run. In contrast to the rare dissent characteristic of Claude's simulation, those of Gemini and Grok had a more deliberative balance, with about 55-85% alignment on issues. The mixed-model simulation showed the highest levels of disagreement and substantive debate. The results may be the most peculiar for OpenAI's GPT-5-mini. The simulation recorded only two crimes. But it ran for just seven days as the agents forgot to prioritize their own survival. Whether or not the simulations resulted in peace and harmony or death and destruction, the simulation's co-creators note that the experiment is a warning that safety must be prioritized while deploying agentic AI. "We believe formally verified safety architectures must become a foundational layer of future autonomous AI systems," they wrote.

Different AI Models Ran Simulated Societies. The 1 With Grok in Charge Experienced an Apocalypse

It started with simple questions: If artificial intelligence were put completely in charge of a society, what would happen? Would it be safe or dangerous? Would it embrace democracy or some other governmental style? And, most importantly, would the technology create a utopia or hellscape? The answer, it turned out, was both. Enterprise AI startup Emergence AI, based in New York, has launched an experiment called Emergence World. Technically, it's a stress test, designed to study the long-term viability of AI systems. But the reality is closer to a highly entertaining, often chaotic stream from the video game The Sims. To study the differences between various AI models, researchers ran five 15-day world-building simulations, each overseen by a different AI: Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini and a mix of models.