The discourse surrounding military artificial intelligence (AI) has taken a surprising turn in certain tech circles recently. Traditionally, individuals working with the military refrained from discussing their reluctance to develop AI for security purposes, while employees at Silicon Valley companies garnered attention for their stance. However, a new faction has emerged, expressing enthusiasm for deploying AI systems in combat not just for financial motives but also to uphold democracy.
Helsing, a defense AI firm founded by Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, frames its mission as providing “artificial knowledge to assist our governments.” In a previous year’s op-ed, Ek and fellow Helsing board member Tom Enders argued that military software startups aiming to “protect democracies from harm” serve as Europe’s primary defense against “imperialistic aggression.” According to Alexander Wang, CEO of Scale AI and self-proclaimed “China Hawk,” his company supplies the military to ensure the United States maintains its leadership position.
Tech investors, whose involvement in defense startups has surged in the last couple of years, echo a similar sentiment. One recent interviewer stated, “If you believe in politics, politics demands a sword,” as noted by David Ulevitch, a general partner at the prominent venture capital firm e16z, which holds stakes in various military startups. Some have drawn parallels between these tech donors and the scientists who contributed to the development of the nuclear bomb in the 20th century.
While the general public is a key audience for these arguments, it is primarily the politicians overseeing military funding and decision-making who are the intended targets. American officials in these positions find it challenging to refute the rationale presented. Rejecting AI could be viewed as endorsing dictatorship, especially if AI is deemed crucial to the “arsenal of democracy,” as articulated by the company Anduril in a 2022 publication. Any hindrance to technological progress is seen as advantageous to China and Russia.
Despite the rapid advancement of AI and the escalating global tensions, the discussion surrounding “AI for warfare” raises significant concerns. It rests on three flawed assumptions: (1) AI will play a pivotal role in peer-to-peer conflicts; (2) AI warfare is morally superior to conventional warfare; and (3) the risks posed by military AI to one’s own democracy can be easily mitigated. Embracing these assumptions without scrutiny could lead governments to adopt AI strategies that jeopardize global security and democratic principles.
First Assumption: AI’s Role in Warfare
The notion that AI excels in combat situations is widely accepted but lacks substantial empirical evidence. Despite years of investment, AI technologies, particularly machine learning, have not been extensively integrated into military operations. While AI applications have improved tasks like language processing, their efficacy in critical battlefield decision-making remains unproven.
Claims of AI’s superiority in warfare are often unsubstantiated. The idea that only AI can counter AI is equally dubious. The U.S. National Security Commission on AI suggests that disrupting an adversary’s communication systems may be more effective than deploying AI in response. Creative tactics, not solely reliant on AI, can outmaneuver AI-based strategies. The narrative of AI dominance in warfare requires closer scrutiny and concrete evidence.
Second Assumption: Ethics of AI Warfare
Proponents argue that AI-driven warfare is more precise, predictable, and cost-effective than traditional methods. They claim AI can exhibit superhuman abilities in distinguishing combatants from civilians, devoid of human emotions that may lead to atrocities. However, the reality of AI technologies contradicts these assertions. AI systems can exhibit unpredictable behaviors and are susceptible to manipulation and hacking, making human-led forces more adaptable and accountable in combat scenarios.
Advocates for “AI for democracy” often overlook the inherent complexities and risks associated with deploying AI in military settings. Relying on AI for military superiority may lead to indiscriminate use of autonomous weapons, posing ethical dilemmas and safety concerns for civilians. The narrative of AI as a morally superior alternative to human-led warfare is misleading and fails to address the potential dangers and uncertainties associated with AI-driven conflicts.
Third Assumption: Mitigating Risks to Democracy
The widespread adoption of military AI raises concerns about its impact on democratic principles and accountability. The use of AI in security and conflict scenarios can challenge established norms of transparency and responsibility within defense forces. Ensuring the ethical and secure deployment of AI technologies requires comprehensive audits, reforms, and transparency measures to safeguard democratic values.
The narrative of AI as a panacea for military challenges overlooks the complexities of integrating AI into democratic frameworks. Governments and corporations must prioritize transparency and public engagement to address the ethical implications of AI-enabled warfare. Upholding democratic principles in the development and deployment of military AI is essential to prevent potential abuses and maintain public trust.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding military AI demands a critical reevaluation of its underlying assumptions and implications. By scrutinizing the role of AI in warfare, acknowledging the ethical complexities of AI-driven conflicts, and prioritizing democratic values in AI deployment, stakeholders can navigate the evolving landscape of AI technologies with greater responsibility and foresight.
